Justice Anoop Chitkara suggested that referring to these laws as BNSS, BNS, and BSA in legal documents such as FIRs, petitions, and orders would be appropriate. He emphasized that this approach is not against the law and would enhance inclusivity, making the judicial process more accessible and efficient.
Punjab and Haryana: Recently, the names of three new criminal laws—the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), and Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA)—have sparked significant concern among lawyers, particularly in the southern states. Non-Hindi speakers and members of the Bar have expressed difficulties in pronouncing these names and have filed petitions to change them.
In response, the Punjab and Haryana High Court proposed a practical solution: using abbreviations. Justice Anoop Chitkara suggested that referring to these laws as BNSS, BNS, and BSA in legal documents such as FIRs, petitions, and orders would be appropriate. He emphasized that this approach is not against the law and would enhance inclusivity, making the judicial process more accessible and efficient.
“A reading of ‘The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023,’ ‘The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023,’ and ‘Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023’ reveals no restrictions on using their abbreviations, BNSS, BNS, and BSA. Using these abbreviations would not violate any law and would simplify the usage of lengthy Hindi terminology in legal contexts, promoting inclusivity and facilitating a more accessible and efficient judicial process,”
the Court stated.
The Court opined that using abbreviations would help standardize the terms, making them universally understandable without linguistic challenges.
“Using abbreviations is likely to reduce the cognitive load on readers by making the text more scannable and accessible. Compared to the Hindi pronunciation, the abbreviations are straightforward to pronounce,”
the Court noted.
The court found no legal restrictions against using the abbreviations BNSS, BNS, and BSA. Justice Chitkara argued that abbreviating these lengthy Hindi terms would simplify their usage and promote inclusivity, thereby making the judicial process more accessible and efficient.
He noted that abbreviations would standardize the terms, making them easier to understand regardless of linguistic competence, and reduce the cognitive load on readers.
The Court believed that using abbreviations would standardize the terms, making them universally understandable without language barriers.
“Abbreviations are likely to reduce the cognitive load on readers by making the text more scannable and accessible. Compared to the Hindi pronunciation, they are straightforward to pronounce,”
the Court observed.
READ ALSO: First Time High Courts Interpreted the New Criminal Laws
These observations were made during the hearing of a bail plea under Section 482 of BNSS in a corruption and cheating case. The petition mentioned the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita as ‘The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) Act,’ prompting the court to consider the use of abbreviations for the other two laws as well.
Justice Chitkara highlighted that abbreviations have been used throughout history, from ancient inscriptions to modern-day instant messages, and are straightforward to pronounce compared to the original Hindi terms.
Hence, it considered the feasibility of using the abbreviation BNSS for Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, and BNS and BSA for the other two statutes, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, respectively.
“Abbreviating words instead of spelling them out in full is a practice that has existed throughout the history of written communication, from ancient stone inscriptions and medieval manuscripts to modern-day instant messages,”
the Court remarked.
READ ALSO: BCI Seeks Suspension of New Criminal Laws Amid Nationwide Protests
Regarding bail, the Court noted that all similarly situated co-accused had been granted bail. Taking this into account, the Court decided to grant anticipatory bail to the woman.
“Thus, without commenting on the merits of the case, given the specific facts and circumstances of this case, and for the reasons mentioned above, the petitioner has made a case for bail. This is subject to Sections 485(4), 486, 491, and 492 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and the terms and conditions on bail bonds, to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer/Investigator or the concerned Court, whichever is applicable,”
the Court ordered.
Case Title: Manpreet Kaur v. State of Punjab
