Introduction
In a significant case concerning linguistic and constitutional issues, the Kerala High Court is deliberating whether it has the authority to direct the Parliament to rename newly enacted criminal laws that have been given Hindi titles. The Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by Advocate P.V. Jeevesh has brought this contentious matter to the forefront, raising questions about language, fundamental rights, and judicial authority.
The Petitioner's Argument
Advocate P.V. Jeevesh's petition is grounded in the assertion that the Hindi titles of the new criminal laws contravene Article 348 of the Indian Constitution. Article 348 mandates that the authoritative texts of all Acts should be in English, which the petitioner argues has supremacy over Article 343 that designates Hindi as the official language. The petitioner contends that the use of Hindi titles for laws creates substantial difficulties for non-Hindi speakers, thereby infringing on their fundamental right to practice their profession as guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
Constitutional Provisions and Conflict
Article 348 stipulates that authoritative legal texts must be in English, ostensibly to ensure uniformity and accessibility in legal matters across the diverse linguistic landscape of India. This provision is particularly crucial in a country with multiple languages and dialects. The petitioner argues that the State must enact laws in conformity with fundamental rights, as mandated by Article 13(2), which renders any law void if it contravenes fundamental rights. In this context, the petitioner asserts that Hindi titles limit access to legal statutes, thus infringing on the rights of those who do not understand Hindi.
Linguistic Imposition and Democratic Principles
The petition underscores the democratic principle that no particular language should be imposed upon citizens, reflecting the pluralistic ethos of the Indian Constitution. The petitioner's contention is that the imposition of Hindi in the titles of laws is an attempt to privilege one language over others, which could lead to marginalization and exclusion of non-Hindi speakers. This argument resonates with broader concerns about linguistic diversity and federalism in India, where language has often been a sensitive and politically charged issue.
Judicial Review and Legislative Authority
A pivotal question in this case is whether the judiciary can direct the legislature to rename laws. The High Court bench, comprising Acting Chief Justice A.M. Mustaque and Justice S. Manu, has expressed reservations about whether it has the power to issue a mandamus—a judicial writ commanding a party to perform a public or statutory duty—directing the Parliament to change the titles of the Acts. This hesitation highlights the constitutional principle of separation of powers, where the judiciary generally refrains from encroaching on legislative functions.
Government's Defense
The Union of India, represented by its counsel, has defended the use of Hindi titles by arguing that the enactments are written in English script and their contents are also in English. The government contends that the titles' Hindi names do not interfere with the statutes' accessibility and comprehension. Additionally, the government cited precedents where other enactments have used Hindi or regional language names without issue, such as the Prasar Bharati Act and the Dakshina Bharat Hindi Prachar Sabha Act.
Court's Observations and Orders
After hearing arguments from both sides, the Kerala High Court has reserved its orders on the matter. The Court acknowledged the complexity of the issue, particularly in balancing linguistic inclusivity with constitutional mandates. The Court's decision will have significant implications, not only for the specific statutes in question but also for the broader constitutional interpretation of language use in legal texts.
Implications and Broader Context
The outcome of this case could set a precedent for how linguistic diversity is managed within the legal framework of India. A ruling in favor of the petitioner could prompt a reevaluation of the language policies in legislative drafting and potentially influence the naming conventions of future laws. Conversely, if the Court decides against intervening in the legislature's domain, it would reaffirm the separation of powers and the autonomy of the legislative process, albeit at the potential cost of alienating non-Hindi speaking populations.
Conclusion
The Kerala High Court's deliberation on the PIL challenging the Hindi titles of new criminal laws is a landmark case that touches upon fundamental constitutional principles and the linguistic fabric of India. The Court's decision will be a crucial determinant of how language rights are balanced against legislative practices in a multilingual democracy. As the country awaits the Court's orders, this case serves as a reminder of the ongoing negotiation between constitutional mandates and the diverse realities of Indian society.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.