Nothing Prevents Parliament From Using Hindi Words As Title Of Enactment: Kerala HC Dismisses Plea Challenging Nomenclature Of New Criminal Laws
The Kerala High Court dismissed a PIL challenging the nomenclature/title of the new criminal laws in the Hindi Language while observing that there is no fundamental right for a citizen to have the title of laws in a familiar language.
The Court clarified that Parliament cannot be prevented from using Hindi words in 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 Bench remarked.
A Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice S. Manu observed, “The petitioner contended that, if Parliament enacts any law that violates fundamental rights, that law should be declared void…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.”
The petitioner is an advocate who appeared in person, while Sr. Counsel Krishna TC represented the respondents.
The petitioner argued that the parliament had no authority to provide nomenclature/title to a particular Act in any language other than the English language, in the light of Article 348 of the Constitution. According to the petitioner, the titles of the new Acts, namely Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and the Bharathiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, being in Hindi, were ultra virus to the scheme of the Constitution.
The Court noted that though the titles of these legislations were described in English, the words were not from the English language. Therefore, the Bench had to determine whether these legislations violative of Article 348(1)(ii) of the Constitution.
The Bench discussed the meaning of 'authoritative text' as referred to under Article 348 1(b) of the Constitution. The Court stated that only the title of the legislation was nomenclature in Hindi, which could not be considered as the text referred to in Article 348 of the Constitution of India.
“The text of this enactment is in English. Here, the text means content. Authoritative is used as an adjective to indicate that the quality of the text or content must be in English. 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,” the Bench explained.
The Court noted that the petitioner had argued that the new laws should be declared void because Parliament cannot enact a law that violates the fundamental rights of a citizen. However, the Court stated that Fundamental rights are group rights and the Constitution can only view citizens as a homogeneous group. Therefore, the Court explained that “nothing prevents Parliament from using Hindi words as the title of an enactment.”
Consequently, the Court remarked, “Article 348 is based on Section 214(5) and Section 227 of the Government of India Act, 1935. This Article is intended to achieve uniformity in the interpretation of statutory provisions and the text of legislation. The Constitution makers were aware native speakers may find difficult in interpreting text of a Parliament enactment, if it is not in English language.”
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the petition.
Cause Title: P.V. Jeevesh v. Union Of India & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024:KER:63693)