Today, On 29th May, The Kerala High Court reviewed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that challenges the use of Hindi names for three new criminal laws, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, and Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam. The PIL questions whether laws passed by Parliament must be named in English.
Kerala: The Kerala High Court decided to examine the question of whether Article 348 of the Indian Constitution requires that not only the text, but also the names of laws passed by the Indian Parliament, must be in English.
The issue arose when the court, considering a public interest litigation (PIL) petition challenging the Hindi names given to three new criminal laws, the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, and the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam.
The petitioner, advocate PV Jeevesh, argued that naming the new laws in this manner violates Article 348(1)(b), which mandates that English shall be used for all Acts and Bills passed by the Parliament.
Read Also: 2016 Dalit Law Student Rape-Murder Case | Kerala HC Upholds Death Sentence
The court, however, asked the petitioner whether the requirement to use English extends to the names of the Acts, or if only the contents of the Acts need to be in English.
The High Court now decided to examine this question in detail and determine the scope of the constitutional provision regarding the use of English for parliamentary legislation.
Justice Arun questioned orally,
“Does Article 348 extend to requiring the name to be in English?”
According to the information provided, when the Court asked a specific question, Jeevesh responded by explaining that the dictionary definition of “authoritative” simply means something that has been passed by an official authority, which in this case would include the names of the Acts.
Moreover, when the counsel representing the Central government argued that the names, written in English, Jeevesh countered by stating that only the alphabet used is English, not the language itself.
The Court, after hearing these arguments, opined that the matter requires a detailed hearing scheduled the next hearing for July 26.
Advocate PV Jeevesh, in his petition, asserted,
“The naming conventions of the recent laws could potentially lead to confusion and challenges for legal professionals in South India and other regions where Hindi isn’t the primary language.”
The PIL further highlights,
“The titles of these legislations pose difficulties in pronunciation for individuals not proficient in Hindi or Sanskrit.”
The petitioner-lawyer’s main argument is that this violates Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to practice any profession or carry on any trade, occupation, or business. Jeevesh further contends that it contravenes the provision of Article 348(1)(b).
Notably, Article 348 pertains to the language to be utilized in the Supreme Court and High Courts, as well as in Acts, Bills, and other legal documents. It stipulates that all proceedings in the Supreme Court and High Court, along with all official texts of Bills or laws introduced and enacted by the Parliament or state legislatures, ordinances passed by the President or State Governors, and all orders, rules, regulations, and bye-laws in India, “shall be in the English language.”
Read Also: “Govt. Should Shut Down Schools Without Proper Playgrounds”: Kerala HC
Jeevesh argued that the inclusion of this Article intended to promote unity among diverse linguistic groups. Therefore, he contended that the naming of the new criminal laws in Hindi constitutes linguistic imperialism, and is autocratic, arbitrary, and antithetical to democratic values and the principles of federalism.
Consequently, he has urged the High Court to mandate the Central government to assign English appellations to the recent legislations. Jeevesh additionally requested a proclamation asserting that the Parliament lacks the jurisdiction to label any statute in any language besides English.
The forthcoming criminal statutes scheduled for implementation in July.