Last Updated on January 25, 2024 by News Desk
Introduction:
Justice Anand Venkatesh, presiding over the Madras High Court, injected a moment of humor into a recent court hearing. Acknowledging his inability to speak Hindi fluently, he expressed his intent to stick to the English terminologies of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), and the Indian Evidence Act, despite the enactment of new laws with Hindi names.
Issues:
During the hearing, Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) A Damodaran faced difficulty articulating the Hindi names of the replaced legal codes, specifically the ‘Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,’ replacing the CrPC. This incident shed light on the linguistic challenges faced by legal professionals in adopting the new terminologies mandated by the recently approved bills – Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, and the Bharatiya Sakshya Sanhita.
Reasoning:
Justice Venkatesh, while intervening in the linguistic hurdle faced by APP Damodaran, humorously highlighted the universal struggle with Hindi pronunciation. Choosing not to grapple with the unfamiliar Hindi names, the judge decided to maintain the use of the familiar English terms for the legal provisions. This decision not only showcased the linguistic diversity within the legal fraternity but also hinted at the practical challenges in implementing language changes seamlessly.
The three bills, receiving Presidential assent on December 25, 2023, marked a significant shift in legal nomenclature. However, Justice Venkatesh’s choice to adhere to the original English names subtly underscored the complexity of linguistic transitions in the legal realm, where precision and clarity are paramount.
Conclusion:
In a legal landscape grappling with linguistic transitions, Justice Venkatesh’s lighthearted stance on his Hindi pronunciation challenges offers a moment of levity. This incident reflects the broader debate around language diversity in legal proceedings and underscores the practical considerations involved in implementing linguistic changes. As the legal community navigates this linguistic shift, Justice Venkatesh’s decision to stick to the familiar serves as a reminder that even in the pursuit of legal clarity, a touch of humor can find its place.
Written by — Athi Venkatesh AVD
