Does name of law passed by parliament have to be in English? Kerala High Court asks

The Kerala High Court on Wednesday decided to examine the question of whether Article 348 of the Constitution of India mandates that even the names of laws passed by the Indian Parliament have to be in English, and not just their texts [PV Jeevesh (Advocate) v. Union of India & Ors.]..The question came up when a Bench of Chief Justice AJ Desai and VG Arun was considering a public interest litigation (PIL) petition challenging the Hindi names given to the three new criminal laws, namely, the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, and the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam..The primary contention raised by the petitioner, advocate PV Jeevesh, was that naming the new laws in this manner falls foul of Article 348 which mandates that English shall be used for all Acts and Bills passed by the Parliament. .The Bench, however, asked Jeevesh if the name of the Acts are also included in the mandate of Article 348 (1)(b) or if only the contents of the Acts need to be in English. "Article 348 only says that authoritative text has to be in English. Does that include the name?" Justice Arun orally queried. .To the question posed by the Court, Jeevesh said that the dictionary definition of "authoritative" merely means something that has been passed by an official authority which in this case, would include the names of the Acts.When the counsel representing the Central government argued that the name is written in English, Jeevesh countered by saying that only the alphabet used is English, not the language.The Court opined that the matter requires a detailed hearing and posted the case next on July 26. .In his petition, advocate PV Jeevesh has stated that the nomenclature of the new laws will create confusion and difficulty for lawyers in South India and other parts of the country where Hindi is not spoken as the first language.The names of the new laws are also hard to pronounce for those who do not speak Hindi or Sanskrit, the PIL added.The primary contention of the petitioner-lawyer is that this is violative of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution which guarantees the right to practice any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade or business.Jeevesh further contended that it also goes against the mandate of Article 348(1)(b)..Notably, Article 348 deals with the language to be used in the Supreme Court and in the High Courts and for Acts, Bills, etc. It states that all proceedings in the Supreme Court and High Court, all "authoritative texts" of Bills or laws (or amendments to laws) introduced and passed by the Parliament or the legislative assembly of a State, all ordinances passed by the President or State Governors as well as all orders, rules, regulations and bye-laws in India "shall be in the English language.".Jeevesh has contended that this Article was included with the intention of promoting unity among diverse linguistic groups. Therefore, he has argued that naming the new criminal laws in Hindi is nothing but linguistic imperialism, and is autocratic, arbitrary and antithetical to democratic values and the principles of federalism.Therefore, he has urged the High Court to order the Central government to give English names to the new laws.Pertinently, Jeevesh also sought a declaration that the Parliament has no authority to title any law in any language other than English.The new criminal laws are slated to come into force in July.