Can This Court Direct Parliament To Rename Laws? Kerala High Court Asks In Plea Challenging Hindi Titles BNS, BNSS, BSA

The Division Bench comprising Acting Chief Justice A. M. Mustaque and Justice S. Manu while reserving the matter for orders orally remarked,

“Can this Court direct the Parliament to rename the enactments…Can this Court issue mandamus saying that, sort of mandamus…like specific order to change title of the Act”

The petition has been filed by Advocate PV Jeevesh stating that Hindi titles given to the new criminal acts contravene the provisions of Article 348 of the Constitution. Previously, it was argued that Hindi names of new criminal laws create difficulty for non-Hindi speakers and violate their fundamental right to carry profession under Article 19(1) (g) of the Constitution.

The petitioner stated that Article 348 of the Constitution says that authoritative texts of all Acts shall be in English. The petitioner submitted that Article 348 of the Constitution has overriding powers over Article 343 which says that Hindi shall be the official language.

The petitioner further argued that the State should not enact laws that violate or abridge his fundamental rights. It was submitted that as per Article 13 (2), the State shall pass laws in conformity with the fundamental rights of citizens. The petitioner contended that his inability to read or handle statutes due to the use of Hindi names directly infringes upon his fundamental rights. Therefore, he asserted that any laws enacted in violation of Article 13(2) are void ab initio to the extent that they infringe upon his fundamental rights.

The petitioner argued that India is based on democratic principles and State cannot impose a particular language upon its citizens. It was argued that the Court has the power to intervene within its powers of judicial review even though it is the function of the legislative body.

On the other hand, Counsel appearing for the Union of India submitted that names are given in English letters and even the script and contents of the enactments are in English. It was also argued that many enactments use terms like Bharathiya, Lokpal, Lokayutka in their names. He referred to Acts like Prasar Bharati Act, Dakshina Bharat Hindi Prachar Sabha Act which has such names and argued that no interference is warranted in the matter.

"We will pass orders," Court said today after hearing both the sides.

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

Case No.: WP(C) 19240/2024