In a recent hearing before the Madras High Court, the Union Government upheld the Hindi names given to three new criminal laws, amidst a constitutional challenge questioning their legitimacy. The court, presided by Acting Chief Justice R Mahadevan and Justice Mohammed Shaffiq, addressed the plea filed by Thoothukudi-based lawyer B Ramkumar Adityan.
Adityan’s petition argues that the use of Hindi and Sanskrit for the law names violates Article 348 of the Constitution, which mandates that all authoritative legal texts be presented in English. This clause aims to ensure clarity and uniform understanding in the legal processes across India, which is home to a multitude of languages.
Representing the government, Additional Solicitor General A R L Sundaresan contended that the Parliament, reflective of the collective will of the populace, opted for these names through its discernment. “It’s the wisdom of the Parliament. The lawmakers we elected have named these laws based on their prudence. If this stands against the Constitution, it is one thing, but it does not infringe upon any rights,” Sundaresan stated. He emphasized that the names are also inscribed in English letters to enhance accessibility.
The debate in the courtroom was intense, with the petitioner’s counsel insisting on adherence to Article 348. The counsel stressed that as authoritative texts, the names of the laws would frequently be cited in legal contexts and thus should be in English to maintain consistency and avoid confusion.
Countering this, Sundaresan argued that the English transliteration of these names aids in their adaptation over time, suggesting that such changes would not impede any fundamental rights, thus not necessitating judicial intervention.
Also Read
The case highlights the ongoing discussions around language use in official and legal texts in India, reflecting broader debates about linguistic diversity and the practical implications of language policies in governance and law. The court’s decision will be closely watched for its potential impact on future legislative practices and language use in legal contexts across the country.
