The Kerala High Court has recently joined the ongoing discussion about the implications of the names given to the three new criminal laws that took effect on July 1, 2024.

These new laws—the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, and the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam—have replaced the Indian Penal Code, the Code of Criminal Procedure, and the Indian Evidence Act, respectively.

A Bench consisting of Acting Chief Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice S. Manu noted that the titles of the new laws are somewhat confusing and will necessitate an adjustment period.

"There will be an adjustment period for everything. But yes, it is a bit confusing. We are also now learning. We have arranged classes in the judicial academy and we are going for it," the Bench orally remarked.

This sentiment echoes the recent comments from the Madras High Court, which observed that although the intent behind the new laws may have been positive, the nomenclature has led to considerable confusion. The Kerala High Court, however, questioned whether it has the authority to change the names of the laws.

"Are we a superbody to direct Parliament? How are you affected? How are citizens affected? Is it a justiciable act? Parliament itself has to correct it...We are not elected people here! We are two persons holding a constitutional office. Can we overcome the wisdom of 540 people in Parliament? It is an act of Parliament. They are elected representatives of this country. How can we interfere in their matter? If 540 people have decided how can two unelected people decide this?" Justice Mustaque said.

The Bench also expressed disapproval regarding how various issues are being presented to the courts through public interest litigation.

"We are not the authority to correct everything here. There may be a mistake or it may be wrong, but how can a PIL lie? We are seeing that every matter is taken to court. If a doctor in a medical college gets transferred, PIL comes. Is it for us to decide?"

The Bench made these observations during the hearing of a public interest litigation (PIL) that sought directions for the Central government to provide English names for the three new criminal laws set to take effect from July 1, 2024.

The PIL, filed by Advocate P.V. Jeevesh, argued that the current nomenclature of the new laws would lead to confusion and difficulties for lawyers in South India and other regions where Hindi is not the primary language. The petition also highlighted that the names are challenging to pronounce for those unfamiliar with Hindi or Sanskrit.

The petitioner-lawyer contended that this situation violates Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to practice any profession, trade, or business.

Jeevesh further contended that this also contravenes Article 348(1)(b) of the Constitution, which mandates that all bills introduced and passed by the legislature must be in the English language.

"One of the legislative intents of the constituent assembly in shaping Article 348 was the widespread use and acceptance of the English language across various linguistic groups in the country. This choice was intended to bridge linguistic barriers and promote unity and understanding among the diverse linguistic groups of the country. The respondents 1 to 4 (Central government) failed to consider that great object of the founding fathers of the Constitution," the PIL stated.

Jeevesh contended that naming the new laws in this manner amounts to linguistic imperialism and is autocratic, capricious, unjustified, arbitrary, and contrary to democratic values and federal principles.

In addition to seeking directions for the laws to be given English names, Jeevesh also requested a declaration that Parliament has no authority to title any law in a language other than English.