Whether Nomenclature Forms Part Of An Act?: Kerala High Court To Examine Validity Of 'Hindi' Titles For New Criminal Law Statutes

The PIL was filed challenging the Hindi titles given to the three new criminal laws. The petition said the members of the law fraternity in the South may find it hard to pronounce and the names can create confusion, ambiguity and difficulty for them. It therefore violates their right under Article 19(1)(g). The petition also contends that giving Hindi names to the Act goes against Article 348 of the Constitution.

The petitioner argued that the Hindi name was in violation of Article 348(1)(b). The provision mentions that 'until Parliament by law otherwise provides'.

Court asked whether Parliament has passed a law in this regard. The petitioner said that Parliament had passed the Official Language Act but it was not intended to be for the purpose in Article 348 (1)(b). The petitioner said Article 343 says that Hindi shall be the official language, but in addition, there is Article 348 in the Constitution which says the authoritative texts of all Acts shall be in English.

When the petitioner said that the Hindi names are hard to pronounce, the Chief Justice asked whether Hindi was not compulsory in schools.

Justice V. G. Arun then questioned the petitioner on what can be considered as 'authoritave text' mentioned in Article 348(1). Only the title of the Act is in Hindi. The text is in English itself, he said.

To this, the petitioner answered that the dictionary meaning of 'authoritative text' is text recognised by an authority. These Acts have been passed by the Parliament. So, this is an authoritative text, it was stated.

Court further asked whether only these three Acts have Hindi names. Petitioner said these were the three main criminal Acts.

In reply, the Central Government Counsel said that the name of the Acts is written in the English Language. English letters are used. There are also other Acts that use Hindi names. Then, there are English words that are specific to our region. There are Indian-English words. Then the question becomes “What is English?,” the government counsel stated.

The counsel then added that the Parliamentary panel had approved these titles. The counsel also added that a challenge to the constitutional validity of the Act is pending before the High Court.

The petitioner said that he is not challenging the Acts but only the names. Justice V. G. Arun concluded that the debate over the names was happening when the Acts had already been passed themselves.

The plea has been moved by Advocate P. V. Jeevesh. 

Case Title: P. V. Jeevesh v Union of India and Others

Case No.: WP(C) 19240/2024