"No Fundamental Right To Demand Laws Titled In Familiar Languages": Kerala HC On 'Hindi' Names Of New Criminal Laws

The Division Bench comprising Acting Chief Justice A Muhamed Mustaque and Justice S Manu observed that citizens have no fundamental right to demand that the title of enactments should be in a familiar language. The Court stated that nothing prevents Parliament from giving Hindi names as the title of an enactment.

“We are unable to accept this argument since there is no fundamental right for a citizen to have title of laws in a language that is familiar to him. Fundamental rights are group rights and the Constitution can only view citizens as a homogeneous group. English is a language recognized under the Constitution. Under Article 351 of the Constitution, directives are issued for the development of Hindi language as a medium of expression for all the elements of composite culture of India. Therefore, nothing prevents Parliament from using Hindi words as the title of an enactment. The mandate under the Constitution is to prefer English as the authoritative text to ensure uniformity throughout the country, not to denounce Hindi in any form with reference to the title of an enactment.”

The petitioner had approached the Court alleging violation of his fundamental right to occupation under Article 19 (1)(g) of the Constitution. He also alleged that the Hindi names can create confusion, ambiguity and difficulty for the legal community of non-Hindi and non-Sanskrit speakers. Further, the petitioner stated that Article 348 of the Constitution says that 'authoritative texts' of all Acts shall be in English.

He thus stated that Hindi titles given to the new criminal acts contravene the provisions of Article 348 of the Constitution.

The Court observed that the meaning of the term 'authoritative text' in Article 348 means the content or text of an enactment and not the title of an enactment.

The Court said, “Although the title of a legislation is often used to understand the text and is treated as integral to the text, it cannot be construed as an authoritative text as understood in Article 348 of the Constitution of India. Nomenclature is nothing but title of the legislation and cannot be considered as the text referred to in Article 348 of the Constitution of India”

The Court went on to state that the mandate of the Constitution is to promote English as an 'authoritative text' to ensure uniformity and not to denounce the Hindi language. It thus held that no law prevents the Parliament from giving Hindi titles to enactments.

As such, the Court held that the petitioner has no justifiable right to approach the Court since there is no violation of fundamental rights.

Accordingly, the Court dismissed the petition.

Counsel for Petitioner: Advocate P V Jeevesh (Party in Person)

Counsel for Respondents: Central Senior Panel Counsel In- Charge Of DSGI, Advocate T C Krishna

Case Number: WP(C) NO. 19240 OF 2024

Case Title: P V Jeevesh (Advocate) v Union of India

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 541