Advocate PV Jeevesh has filed a PIL in the Kerala High Court, urging the Central government to name three new criminal laws in English to alleviate confusion, especially in South India where Hindi is not the primary language.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
Thiruvananthapuram: A public interest litigation (PIL) petition has been filed before the Kerala High Court by advocate PV Jeevesh, seeking directions for the Central government to assign English names to the three new criminal laws set to take effect on July 1, 2024. The petition argues that the current nomenclature of these laws will create confusion and difficulty for legal professionals in regions of India where Hindi is not the first language, particularly in South India.
The newly proposed laws include the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (to replace the IPC), the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (to replace the CrPC), and the Bharatiya Sakshya Bill (to replace the Indian Evidence Act).
The PIL, filed by PV Jeevesh, emphasized that the names of the new laws are challenging to pronounce for individuals who do not speak Hindi or Sanskrit. This difficulty could lead to significant issues for legal practitioners and citizens alike.
“The titles of the new laws will lead to confusion and challenges for lawyers in South India and other regions where Hindi is not the primary language spoken.”
– the petition stated.
Jeevesh’s primary argument is that the current names of the new laws violate Article 19(1)(g) of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees the right to practice any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade, or business. According to Jeevesh, the complicated names could hinder lawyers’ ability to effectively carry out their professional duties.
ALSO READ: Madras High Court Judge Anand Venkatesh Affirms Use of ‘IPC’ Term Despite New Law Named In Hindi
The petition also highlights that the current naming convention goes against the mandate of Article 348(1)(b) of the Constitution. This article stipulates that all bills introduced and passed by the legislature must be in the English language.
Jeevesh further argued-
“It also contradicts the stipulation of Article 348(1)(b), which mandates that all bills presented and approved by the legislature must be in English.”
The advocate’s contention is rooted in the belief that using English for the names of the laws would ensure clarity and uniformity across the country. This is particularly important in legal contexts where precise terminology and clear communication are paramount.
As the new criminal laws are poised to come into effect soon, the petition urges the Kerala High Court to address this issue promptly. The resolution of this matter is critical to maintaining the coherence and accessibility of legal language in India.
The outcome of this PIL could have significant implications for the naming conventions of future legislation in India, especially in a multilingual country where the legal system must cater to diverse linguistic groups.
A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has been filed contesting the naming of laws in Hindi and advocating for English titles. The PIL, rooted in the constitutional ethos of linguistic unity and federalism, confronts the legislative practice of naming laws in Hindi, arguing for broader linguistic inclusivity.
The genesis of this legal battle lies in the legislative intent behind Article 348, crafted by the constituent assembly to foster the widespread use and acceptance of the English language among India’s diverse linguistic groups.
The PIL asserts-
“The constituent assembly had a legislative objective in formulating Article 348, aiming for the extensive adoption and embrace of the English language among diverse linguistic communities. This decision aimed to overcome linguistic barriers and foster cohesion and comprehension among the nation’s varied linguistic groups.”
Central to the PIL’s argument is the contention that the current practice of naming laws in Hindi runs counter to the founding principles of linguistic inclusivity and unity enshrined in the Constitution. It criticizes the respondents, primarily the Central government, for neglecting the overarching objective envisioned by the Constitution’s framers.
The PIL laments-
“The respondents 1 to 4 (Central government) neglected to acknowledge the primary objective of the Constitution’s framers.”
The petitioner, identified as Jeevesh, vehemently opposes the practice of naming laws in Hindi, denouncing it as an act of linguistic imperialism. Jeevesh asserts that such naming conventions are autocratic, capricious, unjustified, arbitrary, and antithetical to democratic values and federal principles.
ALSO READ: New Criminal Laws Fail to Decolonize Legal System: Retd. Justice S Muralidhar
“Naming the new laws in this manner is nothing but linguistic imperialism, and is autocratic, capricious, unjustified, arbitrary and antithetical to the democratic values and the principles of federalism.”
– Jeevesh contends.
Beyond merely challenging the existing naming conventions, the PIL seeks broader judicial intervention. In addition to requesting directions to give English names to laws, it also seeks a declaration affirming that Parliament lacks the authority to title any law in any language other than English. This dual-pronged approach underscores the PIL’s commitment to upholding linguistic diversity while safeguarding constitutional principles.
Case Title:
PV Jeevesh (Advocate) v. Union of India & Ors.
