Latest

6/recent/ticker-posts

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.

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In recent years, India has seen a series of legislative reforms aimed at updating and replacing outdated laws.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.

 

---

 

Post a Comment

0 Comments