In a significant move, Advocate P. V. Jeevesh has filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in the Kerala High Court challenging the Union of India’s decision to title three new criminal laws in Hindi. The plea will be heard by a division bench comprising Chief Justice A J Desai and Justice V G Arun today. Advocate Jeevesh’s petition raises important questions about language use in legislative titles and its broader implications for accessibility and unity in India.
Table of Contents
The Controversial Laws
The three contentious laws are the Bharatiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, and Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam. These laws, dealing with various aspects of the criminal justice system, have been named in Hindi, which has sparked significant debate. Advocate Jeevesh argues that naming these laws in Hindi is impractical for non-Hindi speakers, who make up a significant portion of India’s population. He contends that the use of Hindi titles is constitutionally questionable and may alienate those who do not speak or understand Hindi. The petitioner has requested the court to declare the Hindi titles as ultra vires (beyond the powers) and direct the Union government to provide English titles for these Acts.
Constitutional Basis of the Petition Filed in Kerala High Court
At the heart of the petition is Article 348 of the Indian Constitution, which mandates that authoritative texts of all Bills, amendments, and Acts in Parliament and State Legislatures, as well as Ordinances issued by the President or Governors, should be in English. Advocate Jeevesh argues that the titles of the Acts are integral parts of these texts and should, therefore, be in English to ensure consistency and accessibility across India’s diverse linguistic landscape. By adhering to Article 348, the petitioner believes that legal texts can maintain uniformity and clarity, making them accessible to all, irrespective of their native language.
Linguistic Barriers and National Unity
The petition highlights that one of the key intentions behind Article 348 is to promote the use and acceptance of English across various linguistic groups in India. This, according to the petitioner, is crucial for bridging linguistic barriers and fostering unity among India’s diverse population. By giving these laws Hindi titles, the Union government is accused of engaging in “linguistic imperialism,” potentially sparking language-based tensions and undermining national unity. The petitioner warns that such moves can lead to fragmentation rather than fostering a sense of common identity and understanding among the different linguistic communities in India.
Impact on Non-Hindi Speaking Population
According to the petition, only 41% of India’s population speaks Hindi. This leaves a significant majority, especially in the southern states, where Hindi proficiency is low, facing potential confusion and difficulty. The legal fraternity in these regions, as per the petitioner, may struggle with the pronunciation and understanding of the Hindi titles, thereby affecting their professional efficiency. This linguistic barrier could have practical implications, making it difficult for lawyers, judges, and law students who are not proficient in Hindi to engage with these laws effectively.
Violation of Fundamental Rights
“The terminology in Hindi and Sanskrit languages for these legislations would create confusion, ambiguity, and difficulty for the legal community of non-Hindi and non-Sanskrit speakers, especially those belonging to the southern part of the nation. Moreover, the names provided for these Acts in the languages described above are hard to pronounce for non-Hindi/non-Sanskrit speakers. Therefore, it violates the fundamental right, enshrined under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, of the members of the legal fraternity,” the petition states. Article 19(1)(g) guarantees the right to practice any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade, or business, which the petitioner argues is impeded by the use of Hindi titles.
Broader Implications of the PIL
This PIL is not just about linguistic preferences but touches upon deeper issues of accessibility and equality within the legal system. By potentially alienating a significant portion of the legal community and general populace, the petitioner contends that the Hindi titles could impede the effective administration of justice and legal practice in non-Hindi speaking regions. This raises concerns about equal access to legal resources and the ability of all citizens to understand and engage with the law.
Potential Precedent and Future Implications
The Kerala High Court’s decision on this matter could set a crucial precedent regarding the use of language in legislative titles and documents, influencing future legislative processes and the broader discourse on linguistic diversity in India. The hearing, scheduled for today, is expected to garner significant attention and may lead to substantial discussions about linguistic inclusivity and constitutional mandates in the legislative process. A ruling in favouring the petition could prompt legislative bodies to reconsider their approach to naming laws, ensuring that they are accessible to a wider audience.
Anticipated Impact and Broader Significance
As the legal community and observers await the court’s ruling, this case underscores the ongoing challenges in balancing linguistic diversity with national unity and accessibility within India’s legal framework. The outcome could also prompt other states and legal entities to re-examine their practices concerning language use, potentially paving the way for a more inclusive approach to legislation that respects and acknowledges India’s multilingual heritage. This case highlights the importance of considering the diverse linguistic landscape of India in legal and governmental processes, ensuring that all citizens can participate fully and equally in the nation’s legal system.
