Hindi Names of New Criminal Laws: Parliament’s Wisdom and Constitutional Validity

Historical Context: India’s legal system has evolved significantly since its independence in 1947. The Indian Penal Code (IPC), Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), and the Indian Evidence Act, all of which were enacted during British rule, have been the cornerstone of criminal law in India. Over the years, there have been numerous amendments and reforms to these laws to better align them with contemporary needs and values. The recent introduction of new criminal laws with Hindi names is part of this ongoing process of legal reform.

Article: The Union Government informed the Madras High Court on Wednesday that the Hindi names of the three new criminal laws are not unconstitutional. This statement was made in response to a plea seeking to declare these names as unconstitutional.

Additional Solicitor General (ASG) ARL Sundaresan addressed the bench comprising Acting Chief Justice R Mahadevan and Justice Mohammed Shaffiq, asserting that the parliament, in its wisdom, had named the new laws. He emphasized that unless these names are proven to be inherently illegal or unconstitutional, they should not be interfered with.

“It’s the wisdom of the parliament. All of us have elected the parliament, and these lawmakers, in their wisdom, have named it. Their will is reflected in the names. If it’s against the constitution, then okay. But no rights are affected,” Sundaresan stated.

The petitioner’s counsel argued that according to Article 348 of the Constitution, all authoritative texts should be in English. He contended that the names of the new laws, being authoritative texts frequently cited by lawyers, should also be in English.

In response, the ASG argued that the names of the new laws were also in English, as they used English letters. He added that over time, both the public and lawyers would become accustomed to the new names. He further asserted that the names did not infringe upon any fundamental rights, thus not warranting court interference.

The ASG also contended that the interim prayer of the petition, which sought to restrain the Home Secretary from implementing the new law, was not maintainable.

The court advised the petitioner not to push for interim relief and noted that a similar petition was pending in the Kerala High Court. The court decided to wait for the proceedings before the Kerala High Court and adjourned the case.

“As of now, I don’t want to say anything on this. We’ll post it on the 23rd. The Kerala case is on the 22nd. We’ll post after that,” the court stated, adjourning the case.

Case Title: B Ramkumar Adityan v Cabinet Secretary and Others
Case No: WP 17877 of 2024

Summary:

• The Union Government defended the Hindi names of new criminal laws in the Madras High Court.
• Additional Solicitor General ARL Sundaresan argued that the names were chosen by parliament and are not unconstitutional.
• The petitioner’s counsel cited Article 348, arguing that authoritative texts should be in English.
• The ASG countered that the names are in English letters and do not affect fundamental rights.
• The court decided to wait for a similar case in the Kerala High Court before proceeding.
• The case was adjourned to be posted after the Kerala High Court’s proceedings.