An advocate has filed a plea in the Kerala High Court, stating that the Hindi names of new criminal laws are causing difficulties for non-Hindi speakers.
Case Title: P. V. Jeevesh v
Union of India and Others
Case No.: WP(C) 19240/2024
Summary:
Background and Context
In recent years, India has seen
a series of legislative reforms aimed at updating and replacing outdated laws.
As part of this process, the Union of India introduced three new Criminal Acts:
the Bharatiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, and Bharatiya
Sakshya Adhiniyam. These Acts were named in Hindi, which has sparked
significant debate and legal challenges.
The Petition
Advocate P. V. Jeevesh filed a
Public Interest Litigation (PIL) before the Kerala High Court, challenging the
Union of India's decision to use Hindi titles for these new Acts. The PIL, case
number WP(C) 19240/2024, argues that naming national legislation exclusively in
Hindi violates the constitutional rights of non-Hindi speakers.
Key Legal Arguments
1. Violation of Article 19(1)(g):
- The petitioner
argues that Article 19(1)(g) of the Indian Constitution guarantees the
fundamental right to practice any profession, or to carry on any occupation,
trade, or business. The use of Hindi in naming these laws creates a barrier for
non-Hindi speakers, potentially hindering their professional and occupational
activities, particularly in the legal field.
2. Integral Part of the Act:
- The petitioner
insists that the nomenclature of an Act is an integral part of the Act itself.
A law's name should be comprehensible to all citizens, irrespective of their
linguistic background. The exclusive use of Hindi is seen as an exclusionary
practice that alienates non-Hindi speaking individuals.
3. National Unity and Linguistic
Dominance:
- The PIL
highlights concerns about linguistic dominance and its impact on national
unity. India is a multilingual country with a rich diversity of languages.
Focusing on any one language, especially in official documents and laws, can
lead to linguistic tensions and undermine the country's unity.
Demands and Relief Sought
The petitioner seeks a
declaration from the court that the Parliament cannot name Acts in any language
other than English. This demand is rooted in the historical and practical role
of English as a lingua franca in India, particularly in legal, administrative,
and educational contexts. The petitioner argues that using English titles for
laws would ensure accessibility and comprehensibility for all citizens,
regardless of their linguistic background.
Broader Implications
This case touches on broader
issues of language policy, national identity, and constitutional rights in
India. The outcome could have significant implications for:
- Legislative Practices:
Establishing a precedent for the language used in naming national legislation.
- Legal Profession: Impacting
how laws are taught, interpreted, and practiced across the country.
- National Unity: Influencing
the ongoing debate about linguistic diversity and its role in India's national
identity.
Court Proceedings
The Kerala High Court's division
bench is scheduled to hear the case on May 29, 2024. The decision will likely
take into account constitutional principles, past precedents, and the practical
realities of India's linguistic diversity.
Potential Outcomes
1. In Favor of the Petitioner:
If the court rules in favor of the petitioner, it could mandate that all
national laws be named in English, ensuring uniformity and accessibility.
2. In Favor of the Union of
India: If the court upholds the use of Hindi titles, it might set a precedent
for the increased use of Hindi in official documents, potentially prompting
further debates and legal challenges.
3. Middle Ground: The court
could propose a compromise, such as bilingual titles (Hindi and English), to
balance the interests of different linguistic communities.
Conclusion:
The case of P. V. Jeevesh v
Union of India and Others presents a critical examination of language policy in
India's legislative process. It underscores the ongoing challenges of
maintaining national unity in a multilingual society and highlights the importance
of ensuring that all citizens can equally participate in and understand the
laws that govern them.
As the legal community and the
public await the court's decision, this case serves as a reminder of the
delicate balance between linguistic diversity and national unity, and the
fundamental rights enshrined in the Indian Constitution.
---
0 Comments