The PIL filed by a Thoothukudi based lawyer, one B Ramkumar Adityan, said that such Hindi and Sanskrit nomenclature is unconstitutional and in breach of Article 348(1)(a) of the Constitution.
As per the petitioner, 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.”
Hindi is not the mother tongue of 56.37% of Indians and yet the union government has assigned Hindi and Sanskrit nomenclature to the new laws, the petitioner contended.
This was despite the fact that Article 348(1)(a) of the Constitution mandates that all proceedings in the Supreme Court and the High Courts should be conducted in the English, the petitioner said in his plea.
Additional Solicitor General ARL Sundaresan, appearing for the Central government, told the Court that English alphabet has been used in nomenclature of Hindi names given to three new laws and it is the will of the parliament.
“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.
The Court eventually issued notice to the Centre but refused to stay the laws.
Source: Barandbench
