Supreme Court Dismisses Plea for Renaming Places: Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay vs. Union of India (27 February 2023)

Date of the Judgment: 27 February 2023
Citation: 2023 INSC 174
Judges: K.M. Joseph, J. and B.V. Nagarathna, J.
Can the past dictate the present? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed a petition seeking to rename historical places named after foreign invaders, arguing that such names compromise national sovereignty and violate fundamental rights. The Court, however, dismissed the petition, emphasizing that the present and future of the country cannot be held hostage by the past. The bench consisted of Justices K.M. Joseph and B.V. Nagarathna.

Case Background

The petitioner, Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, argued that many ancient, historical, cultural, and religious places in India are named after “brutal foreign invaders,” their servants, and family members. He contended that this practice infringes upon the right to dignity (Article 21), the right to culture (Articles 19 and 29), and the right to religion (Article 25) of Indian citizens. Additionally, he argued that the continued use of such names compromises the sovereignty of India. The petitioner sought the establishment of a “Renaming Commission” or, alternatively, for the Archaeological Survey of India to research and publish the original names of these places.

Timeline

Legal Framework

The petitioner invoked several articles of the Constitution of India to support his claims:

• Article 21: Guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, which the petitioner argued includes the right to dignity.
• Article 25: Guarantees the freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practice, and propagate religion.
• Article 29: Protects the right of any section of citizens to conserve its distinct culture.
• Article 19(1)(a): Guarantees the right to freedom of speech and expression, which the petitioner argued includes the right to know the original names of historical places.

The Supreme Court also considered the following aspects of the Constitution:

• Preamble: Establishes India as a secular republic, committed to justice, liberty, equality, and fraternity.
• Secularism: The Court emphasized that India is a secular country where the State does not favor any particular religion.
• Fundamental Rights: The Court noted its role as the guardian of fundamental rights under Article 32 of the Constitution.

Arguments

Petitioner’s Arguments:

• The petitioner argued that continuing the names of ancient places after “barbaric invaders” is against the sovereignty of India.
• He contended that the Centre and States are obligated to restore the original names of these places to secure the Right to Dignity guaranteed under Article 21.
• The petitioner submitted that the restoration of original names is connected with the unity and integrity of the nation.
• He argued that the right to profess, practice, and propagate religion is intimately connected with the names of religious places, and therefore, changes made during foreign rule must be reversed.
• He also submitted that the names of places prevalent during the Ramayana and Mahabharata periods were arbitrarily and illegally changed during foreign rule and should be restored to protect the right to conserve ancient culture under Article 29.
• The petitioner argued that the restoration of original names is connected with the Right to Identity guaranteed under Article 21.
• Finally, he contended that the Right to Know guaranteed under Article 19 includes the right to know the original names of the ancient historical cultural religious places.

Court’s Observations on the Arguments:

The Court did not directly address the arguments of the respondents, as the matter was dismissed at the preliminary stage. However, the Court made observations about the secular nature of the Indian state and the need to move forward without being held back by historical grievances.

Submissions

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court identified the following questions of law raised by the petitioner:

1. Whether continuing the names of ancient historical cultural religious places, in the names of barbaric invaders is against the Sovereignty?
2. Whether Centre and States are obligated to restore the names of ancient historical cultural religious places in their original names to secure Right to Dignity guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution?
3. Whether the relief claimed for restoration of names of ancient historical cultural religious places, which were changed during foreign rule, relates to Unity and Integrity of the Nation, the laudable objective sought to be achieved in the Preamble of the Constitution of India?
4. Whether Right to profess, practice and propagate religion, is intimately connected with the names of religious places and therefore the changes made during foreign rule must be restored to enable the citizens to freely Profess, Practice and Propagate Religion guaranteed Article 25?
5. Whether the names of places prevalent during Ramayana and Mahabharata Period were arbitrarily and illegally changed during foreign rule, ought to be restored so as to protect the Right to Conserve the Ancient Culture, guaranteed under Article 29 of the Constitution of India?
6. Whether restoration of the names of the ancient historical cultural religious places, is connected with Right to Identity guaranteed under Article 21?
7. Whether Right to Know guaranteed under Article 19 includes the right to know Original Names of the ancient historical cultural religious places?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court referred to the following cases to emphasize the secular nature of India and the importance of moving forward:

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• His Holiness Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru v. State of Kerala and Another [ (1973) 4 SCC 225 ]: The Court used this case to underscore that India is a secular state where there is no state religion.
• S.R. Bommai and Others v. Union of India and Others [ (1994) 3 SCC 1 ]: This authority was used to emphasize that secularism is a basic feature of the Constitution and that religion cannot be mixed with secular activities of the State.
• State of Karnataka v. Praveen Bhai Thogadia (Dr.) [ (2004) 4 SCC 684 ]: The Court cited this case to reiterate that India is a diverse society with a commitment to secularism and that religion cannot be mixed with secular activities.
• M.P. Gopalakrishnan Nair v. State of Kerala [ (2005) 11 SCC 45 ]: The Court referred to this case to reiterate that the Constitution prohibits the establishment of a theocratic state and that the state must not favor any particular religion.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the need to maintain the secular fabric of the nation and to ensure that the country moves forward without being burdened by historical grievances. The Court emphasized the importance of fraternity and harmony among all sections of society. The Court also highlighted that the governance of India must conform to the rule of law, secularism, and constitutionalism, with Article 14 guaranteeing equality and fairness.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court rejected the petitioner’s arguments, stating that “The present and future of a country cannot remain a prisoner of the past.” It further noted that “The governance of Bharat must conform to Rule of law, secularism, constitutionalism of which Article 14 stands out as the guarantee of both equality and fairness in the State’s action.” The Court also emphasized that “actions must be taken which bond all sections of the society together.” The Court did not find any merit in the arguments made by the petitioner.

Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court dismissed the petition seeking to rename historical places, emphasizing that the present and future of India cannot be held hostage by the past.
• The Court reiterated that India is a secular nation, and the State must not favor any particular religion.
• The Court stressed the importance of fraternity and harmony among all sections of society.
• The judgment reinforces the principle that historical grievances should not dictate present-day governance and policies.

Directions

No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the present and future of India cannot be held hostage by the past. The Court has reiterated the importance of secularism and constitutionalism in the governance of the country. This case reinforces the principle that historical grievances should not dictate present-day governance and policies.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the writ petition filed by Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, which sought the renaming of historical places named after foreign invaders. The Court emphasized the secular nature of India and the need to move forward without being burdened by the past. The judgment underscores the importance of maintaining harmony and fraternity among all sections of society and reinforces the principle that historical grievances should not dictate present-day governance.