Within days of the implementation of new criminal laws in India, a major controversy has erupted over their Hindi and Sanskrit language nomenclature. A petition was filed in the Madras High Court seeking directives to declare the names unconstitutional. However, the court on Wednesday (Jul 3) refused to stay the implementation of the new laws that came into effect on July 1 replacing the Indian Penal Code, Code of Criminal Procedure and the Indian Evidence Act.
The court instead sought a response from the Union government's representative. The bench of acting Chief Justice R Mahadevan and Justice Mohammed Shaffiq subsequently issued a notice to the central government.
The Union government, on the other hand, told the court that there was nothing unconstitutional in the new criminal laws.
Additional Solicitor General ARL Sundaresan, who represented the government, said that the parliament had enacted the laws in its own wisdom and they can't be interfered with, unless these are proven to be inherently illegal or unconstitutional.
Watch:India: 3 new criminal laws to replace colonial-era codes
“It's the wisdom of the parliament. All of us have elected the parliament and these lawmakers, on their wisdom have named it. Their will is shown in the names. If it's against the constitution, then okay. But no rights are affected,” Sundaresan was quoted as saying by Live Law, a legal media outlet.
The petition, filed by lawyer B Ramkumar Adityan, said the Hindi and Sanskrit nomenclature violated Article 348(1)(a) of the Constitution.
Out of the “28 states and eight union territories in the country, only nine states and two union territories have Hindi as their official language,” the petition said.
"Hindi is not the mother tongue of 56.37 per cent of Indians and yet the Union government has assigned Hindi and Sanskrit nomenclature to the new laws," it added.
Responding to these allegations, Sundaresan clarified that the English alphabet has been used in the nomenclature of Hindi names.
"People will get used to these names eventually. It is a matter of time. But these names do not breach any constitutional rights or citizens' fundamental rights. These names are not in violation of Article 348," he said.
(With inputs from agencies)