Introduction:

Justice Anand Venkatesh of the Madras High Court has made a noteworthy stance by expressing his intent to continue using the original names of legal acts, such as IPC, CrPC, and the Evidence Act, even after the proposed replacement with new acts featuring Hindi names. This decision, noted during a case discussing amendments to the CrPC, adds a unique dimension to the ongoing debate surrounding the potential renaming of these acts.

Arguments:

In a case related to the limitation period under Section 468 of CrPC, lawyers informed the court about amendments brought in by the new Act. As the Additional Public Prosecutor grappled with pronouncing Hindi terms, Justice Anand Venkatesh humorously declared his preference for the original names, citing unfamiliarity with the language. This stance aligns with the Madras Bar Association’s resolution from August, opposing the renaming of IPC, CrPC, and the Evidence Act in Hindi. The association argues that this move violates constitutional provisions and advocates retaining the English names.

Court’s Judgement:

Justice Anand Venkatesh’s decision to persist with the original names, despite the proposed Hindi renaming, reflects a nuanced stance on linguistic diversity within the legal system. While not a formal judgment, this position sets an informal precedent for maintaining continuity and linguistic inclusivity in legal terminology.