Can court direct Parliament to change Hindi names of new criminal laws? Kerala High Court asks

The Kerala High Court on Monday reserved its judgment on a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petition challenging the Hindi names of the three newly enforced criminal laws - the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), and the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA) [PV Jeevesh v Union of India & ors].A Division Bench of acting Chief Justice A Muhamed Mustaque and Justice S Manu deliberated on whether it possesses the authority to direct the parliament to rename these laws in English."Can this Court direct the parliament to rename the enactments? Law is not ultra vires. Can this Court issue a mandamus to change the title of the Act," the Bench asked..The Bench during the previous hearing had highlighted the confusion caused by the names though it had sought clarification in whether the Court can step in to alter the names of the laws..The Public Interest Litigation (PIL) moved by advocate PV Jeevesh, stated that the Hindi names of the new criminal laws contravened Article 348 of the Constitution which mandates that all authoritative texts of laws must be in English. The petition stated that Hindi names create confusion and difficulty for non-Hindi speakers and infringe their fundamental right to practice a profession under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution..During today's hearing, the petitioner argued that the Hindi names were violative of Article 348 (language to be used in the Supreme Court and in the High Courts and for Acts, Bills, etc.)It was contended asserting that Article 348 (1)(b) overrides Article 343 (Official language of the Union) that designate Hindi as one of the two official languages of Government of India.The petitioner further argued that the state cannot impose a particular language for criminal law titles, as English was chosen in the Constitution to bridge the country's linguistic diversity.He claimed that his inability to read or handle statutes titled in Hindi directly infringes upon his fundamental rights, rendering the laws void ab initio under Article 13(2)..The Central government counsel argued that the enactments are written in English, including the script and contents. The counsel argued that several laws in India have Indianised names that include Hindi terms, citing examples such as Lokpal Bill, Lokayuktha Bill etc.He mentioned that Acts like the Prasar Bharati Act and the Rashtriya Raksha University Act etc. use Hindi names,Hence, there is no need for judicial interference, it was submitted..The Court after hearing the parties reserved its verdict.