'Linguistic Imperialism': PIL in Kerala HC Over Hindi, Sanskrit Titles to Central Legislation
The Wire Staff
Real journalism holds power accountable
Since 2015, The Wire has done just that.
But we can continue only with your support.
New Delhi: A public interest litigation (PIL) has been filed in the Kerala high court arguing that parliament has no authority to name legislation in any other language except English.
The petitioner, a lawyer, urged the court to issue directions to the Union government to provide English titles to the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023, and Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023, which recently replaced the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Indian Penal Code, and the Indian Evidence Act, respectively.
Petitioner P.V. Jeevesh said the use of Hindi and Sanskrit titles to important legislation is "ultra vires", according to the scheme of the constitution. He said such nomenclature proves disadvantageous to the legal fraternity in south India, where people are not conversant with Hindi and Sanskrit.
"The nomenclature in Hindi and Sanskrit 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," PTI quoted him as saying.
He also went on to add, "Moreover, the names provided in the aforesaid languages are hard to pronounce for non-Hindi and non-Sanskrit speakers. Therefore, it violates the fundamental right under Article 19 (freedom of speech and expression) of the constitution."
He also pointed out that such naming goes against Article 348 of the constitution, which deals with language to be used in the Supreme Court, high courts, and for Acts, Bills, etc.
He underlined that Article 348(1)(b) mandates that all Bills introduced in the legislative bodies and the Acts passed by them be in English.
"Therefore, the action of the respondents 1 to 4 (Centre and Union Law Ministry) is a classic example of linguistic imperialism. The actions of the respondents 1 to 4 are autocratic, capricious, unjustified and arbitrary, and antithetical to the democratic values and the principles of federalism," he noted in his plea.
This article went live on May twenty-ninth, two thousand twenty four, at forty-eight minutes past ten in the morning.The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.