National

Parliamentary Panel Upholds Legality of Hindi Names for Proposed Criminal Laws

FacebookFacebookTwitterTwitterEmailEmailWhatsAppWhatsAppLinkedInLinkedInShareShare

A parliamentary panel has determined that assigning Hindi names to the three proposed criminal laws is not unconstitutional, dismissing criticism from certain political parties and leaders.

The Parliamentary Standing Committee on Home Affairs, led by BJP MP Brijlal, considered Article 348 of the Constitution, which stipulates the use of the English language in the Supreme Court, high courts, and legal documents, including Acts and Bills.

“The committee finds that as the text of the Sanhita is in English, it does not violate the provisions of Article 348 of the Constitution. The committee is satisfied with the response of the Ministry of Home Affairs and holds that the name given to the proposed legislation is not in violation of Article 348 of the Constitution of India,” stated the panel in its report submitted to the Rajya Sabha.

The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS-2023), Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS-2023), and the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA-2023) were introduced in the Lok Sabha on August 11, aiming to replace the Indian Penal Code, 1860, Criminal Procedure Act, 1898, and the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, respectively.

Senior Congress leader P Chidambaram had raised concerns about the central government assigning Hindi names to the bills, emphasizing that laws drafted in English should have English names. The ruling DMK in Tamil Nadu also objected, with Chief Minister MK Stalin describing it as “linguistic imperialism” and an attempt at “recolonisation.”

The Madras Bar Association deemed the naming in Hindi as against the Constitution, passing a resolution to this effect. DMK MP Dayanidhi Maran objected to the Hindi titles, stating they undermine the country’s multilingual nature.

Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan labeled Stalin’s objections as “petty politics,” asserting that it weakens the unity of India. During the panel’s discussions, Union Home Secretary Ajay Bhalla addressed objections, emphasizing that since the bills are written in English, there is no breach of constitutional provisions outlined in Article 348, which mandates the use of English in bills, acts, and ordinances.

Nunnem Gangte

Recent Posts

Madras HC Grants Interim Anticipatory Bail To Comedian Kunal Kamra

The Madras High Court on Friday granted stand-up comedian Kunal Kamra interim transit anticipatory bail…

3 hours ago

“Restaurants Can’t Force Customers To Pay Service Charge”: Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court on Friday ruled that payment of service charge by customers at…

4 hours ago

Delhi HC Orders Engineer Rashid To Deposit Over ₹3.35 Lakh To Attend Parliament

The Delhi High Court on Friday directed Jammu and Kashmir Member of Parliament (MP), Abdul…

4 hours ago

Kerala HC Dissolves Petitions Seeking Probe Against CM Pinarayi Vijayan And His Daughter

The Kerala High Court on Friday dismissed 2 petitions seeking an investigation into allegations of…

5 hours ago

Supreme Court Sets Aside Plea For FIR Against Justice Yashwant Varma, Says Inquiry Ongoing

The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed a petition seeking an FIR against Justice Yashwant Varma,…

6 hours ago

Staff Appointment Case: Madhya Pradesh HC Gives AIIMS Bhopal ‘Last Chance’ To Respond

The Madhya Pradesh High Court on Friday issued a “last chance” to the All Indian…

6 hours ago