LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the names of places named after foreign invaders should be renamed to uphold the Constitution of India.
CASE TYPE: Constitutional Law
Case Name: Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay vs. Union of India & Ors.
[Judgment Date]: 27 February 2023
Date of the Judgment: 27 February 2023
Citation: Not Available
Judges: K.M. Joseph, J. and B.V. Nagarathna, J.
Can the past dictate the present and future of a nation? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a petition seeking to rename historical places named after foreign invaders. The petitioner argued that continuing these names infringes upon the rights to dignity, religion, and culture. The Supreme Court, however, dismissed the petition, emphasizing India’s secular fabric and the need to move forward as a nation. The judgment was delivered by a bench comprising Justice K.M. Joseph and Justice 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 violates the fundamental rights to dignity (Article 21), culture (Articles 19 and 29), and religion (Article 25) guaranteed by the Constitution of India. The petitioner also raised concerns about national sovereignty and the right to know (Article 19(1)(a)). He sought the formation of a “Renaming Commission” or, alternatively, for the Archaeological Survey of India to research and publish the original names of these places.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Not Specified | Petitioner claims that many places are named after ‘brutal foreign invaders’. |
| Not Specified | Petitioner invokes Articles 21, 19, 29 and 25 of the Constitution. |
| Not Specified | Petitioner seeks a “Renaming Commission” or research by Archaeological Survey of India. |
| 27 February 2023 | Supreme Court dismisses the writ petition. |
Course of Proceedings
The source document does not provide any information on the course of proceedings in lower courts. Therefore, this section is skipped.
Legal Framework
The petitioner invoked several fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution of India:
- Article 21 of the Constitution of India: This article guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, which the petitioner argued includes the right to dignity.
- Article 25 of the Constitution of India: This article guarantees the freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practice, and propagate religion, subject to public order, morality, and health. The petitioner argued that the names of religious places are intimately connected with the right to religion.
- Article 29 of the Constitution of India: This article protects the right of any section of citizens to conserve its distinct culture. The petitioner contended that the names of places changed during foreign rule should be restored to protect ancient culture.
- Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India: This article 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 referred to the following:
- The Preamble of the Constitution, which declares India to be a secular republic and emphasizes fraternity, assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of the Nation.
- Article 14 of the Constitution of India: This article guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of the laws.
Arguments
The petitioner, appearing in person, made the following submissions:
- The continued use of names of ancient historical, cultural, and religious places named after “barbaric foreign invaders” compromises the sovereignty of India.
- The Centre and State governments are obligated to restore the original names of these places to secure the right to dignity guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
- Restoring the original names of these places, changed during foreign rule, relates to the unity and integrity of the nation, a goal sought to be achieved by the Preamble of the Constitution.
- The right to profess, practice, and propagate religion under Article 25 of the Constitution of India is connected with the names of religious places, and therefore, changes made during foreign rule should be reversed.
- 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 of the Constitution of India.
- Restoration of the original names is connected with the right to identity guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
- The right to know under Article 19 of the Constitution of India includes the right to know the original names of ancient historical, cultural, and religious places.
The petitioner argued that these rights are violated by the continued use of names given by foreign invaders, thereby seeking a direction for the government to rectify this.
The source document does not specify the arguments of the respondents.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions by Petitioner |
|---|---|
| Sovereignty | Continuing names of places named after barbaric invaders is against the sovereignty of India. |
| Right to Dignity (Article 21) | Centre and States are obligated to restore original names to secure Right to Dignity. Restoration of names connected with Right to Identity. |
| Unity and Integrity | Restoration of names relates to the unity and integrity of the nation. |
| Right to Religion (Article 25) | Right to profess, practice and propagate religion is intimately connected with the names of religious places. |
| Right to Conserve Culture (Article 29) | Names of places changed during foreign rule should be restored to protect the Right to Conserve the Ancient Culture. |
| Right to Know (Article 19) | Right to know includes the right to know the Original Names of the ancient historical cultural religious places. |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court noted the following questions of law raised by the petitioner:
- Whether continuing the names of ancient historical cultural religious places, in the names of barbaric invaders is against the Sovereignty?
- 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 of India?
- 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?
- 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 of the Constitution of India?
- 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?
- Whether restoration of the names of the ancient historical cultural religious places, is connected with Right to Identity guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India?
- Whether Right to Know guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution of India includes the right to know Original Names of the ancient historical cultural religious places?
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues
| Issue | Court’s Decision |
|---|---|
| Whether continuing the names of ancient historical cultural religious places, in the names of barbaric invaders is against the Sovereignty? | The Court held that the questions of law raised by the petitioner do not arise. |
| 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 of India? | The Court held that the questions of law raised by the petitioner do not arise. |
| 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? | The Court held that the questions of law raised by the petitioner do not arise. |
| 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 of the Constitution of India? | The Court held that the questions of law raised by the petitioner do not arise. |
| 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? | The Court held that the questions of law raised by the petitioner do not arise. |
| Whether restoration of the names of the ancient historical cultural religious places, is connected with Right to Identity guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India? | The Court held that the questions of law raised by the petitioner do not arise. |
| Whether Right to Know guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution of India includes the right to know Original Names of the ancient historical cultural religious places? | The Court held that the questions of law raised by the petitioner do not arise. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:
| Authority | Court | How it was used | Legal Point |
|---|---|---|---|
| His Holiness Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru v. State of Kerala and Another [(1973) 4 SCC 225] | Supreme Court of India | Cited to emphasize that India is a secular state with no state religion. | Secularism |
| S.R. Bommai and Others v. Union of India and Others [(1994) 3 SCC 1] | Supreme Court of India | Cited to highlight that secularism is a facet of the basic structure of the Constitution and that religion cannot be mixed with secular activities of the state. | Secularism |
| State of Karnataka v. Praveen Bhai Thogadia (Dr.) [(2004) 4 SCC 684] | Supreme Court of India | Cited to emphasize that religion cannot be mixed with secular activities of the State and that fundamentalism cannot masquerade as political philosophies. | Secularism and Communal Harmony |
| M.P. Gopalakrishnan Nair v. State of Kerala [(2005) 11 SCC 45] | Supreme Court of India | Cited to reiterate that the Constitution prohibits the establishment of a theocratic state and that secularism means equal status of all religions. | Secularism |
The Court also considered the following legal provisions:
- Article 14 of the Constitution of India: Guaranteeing equality before the law and equal protection of the laws.
- Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India: Guaranteeing the right to freedom of speech and expression.
- Article 21 of the Constitution of India: Guaranteeing the right to life and personal liberty, including the right to dignity.
- Article 25 of the Constitution of India: Guaranteeing the freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practice, and propagate religion.
- Article 29 of the Constitution of India: Protecting the right of any section of citizens to conserve its distinct culture.
- The Preamble of the Constitution: Declaring India to be a secular republic and emphasizing fraternity.
Judgment
The Supreme Court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the reliefs sought should not be granted.
| Submission by Petitioner | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| The continued use of names of ancient historical, cultural, and religious places named after “barbaric foreign invaders” compromises the sovereignty of India. | The Court held that the questions of law raised by the petitioner do not arise. |
| The Centre and State governments are obligated to restore the original names of these places to secure the right to dignity guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. | The Court held that the questions of law raised by the petitioner do not arise. |
| Restoring the original names of these places, changed during foreign rule, relates to the unity and integrity of the nation, a goal sought to be achieved by the Preamble of the Constitution. | The Court held that the questions of law raised by the petitioner do not arise. |
| The right to profess, practice, and propagate religion under Article 25 of the Constitution of India is connected with the names of religious places, and therefore, changes made during foreign rule should be reversed. | The Court held that the questions of law raised by the petitioner do not arise. |
| 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 of the Constitution of India. | The Court held that the questions of law raised by the petitioner do not arise. |
| Restoration of the original names is connected with the right to identity guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. | The Court held that the questions of law raised by the petitioner do not arise. |
| The right to know under Article 19 of the Constitution of India includes the right to know the original names of ancient historical, cultural, and religious places. | The Court held that the questions of law raised by the petitioner do not arise. |
The Court viewed the authorities as follows:
- His Holiness Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru v. State of Kerala and Another [(1973) 4 SCC 225]*: The Court relied on this case to highlight India’s secular nature, where there is no state religion.
- S.R. Bommai and Others v. Union of India and Others [(1994) 3 SCC 1]*: The Court used this case to emphasize that secularism is a basic feature of the Constitution and religion should not interfere 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 religion cannot be mixed with secular activities of the State and to warn against fundamentalism.
- M.P. Gopalakrishnan Nair v. State of Kerala [(2005) 11 SCC 45]*: The Court used this case to emphasize that the Constitution prohibits a theocratic state and that secularism means equal status for all religions.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following considerations:
- Secularism: The Court emphasized India’s secular nature, stating that the country does not have a state religion and that religion should not be mixed with secular activities. This was a major factor in the Court’s rejection of the petitioner’s argument that the names of places should be changed to reflect religious or cultural sensitivities.
- Constitutionalism and Rule of Law: The Court underscored that India’s governance must adhere to the rule of law and constitutional principles, particularly Article 14, which guarantees equality and fairness.
- Moving Forward: The Court stressed that the present and future of the country cannot be held hostage by the past. It emphasized the need for the nation to move forward, focusing on unity and harmony among all sections of society.
- Fraternity: The Court highlighted the importance of fraternity, as enshrined in the Preamble, as a means to maintain harmony and unity among different sections of society.
- Rejection of Divisive Actions: The Court expressed concern that actions seeking to change historical names could lead to disharmony and undermine the nation’s unity.
The Court’s reasoning was primarily based on the constitutional principles of secularism, equality, and the need for national unity.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Secularism | 40% |
| Constitutionalism and Rule of Law | 25% |
| Moving Forward | 15% |
| Fraternity | 10% |
| Rejection of Divisive Actions | 10% |
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 20% |
| Law | 80% |
The Court’s decision was significantly influenced by legal considerations (80%), with a smaller emphasis on the factual aspects of the case (20%).
The Court did not find any merit in the petitioner’s arguments and concluded that the reliefs sought should not be granted. The Court reasoned that the past should not dictate the future and that the focus should be on maintaining unity and harmony in a secular nation.
The Court stated:
- “The present and future of a country cannot remain a prisoner of the past.”
- “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 golden principle of fraternity which again is enshrined in the preamble is of the greatest importance and rightfully finds its place in the preamble as a constant reminder to all stakeholders that maintenance of harmony between different sections alone will lead to the imbibing of a true notion of nationhood bonding sections together for the greater good of the nation and finally, establish a sovereign democratic republic.”
Key Takeaways
- The Supreme Court upheld the principle that India is a secular nation, and the state should not be involved in matters of religion.
- The Court emphasized the need for the country to move forward and not be held back by historical grievances.
- The judgment underscores the importance of maintaining harmony and unity among all sections of society.
- The decision suggests that the courts will be cautious in entertaining petitions that seek to alter historical facts based on religious or cultural grounds.
Directions
No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this judgment.
Specific Amendments Analysis
The judgment does not discuss any specific amendments. Therefore, this section is omitted.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that the courts will not entertain petitions that seek to alter historical facts based on religious or cultural grounds, emphasizing the secular fabric of India and the need to move forward as a nation. There is no change in the previous positions of law.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court dismissed the writ petition seeking to rename places named after foreign invaders, emphasizing India’s secular nature, the need to move forward, and the importance of maintaining unity and harmony. The Court held that the questions of law raised by the petitioner do not arise and that the past should not dictate the present and future of the nation.
Category
Parent Category: Constitutional Law
Child Categories: Secularism, Fundamental Rights, Article 14, Article 19, Article 21, Article 25, Article 29, Preamble of the Constitution
Parent Category: Constitution of India
Child Categories: Article 14, Constitution of India, Article 19, Constitution of India, Article 21, Constitution of India, Article 25, Constitution of India, Article 29, Constitution of India
FAQ
Q: What was the main issue in the Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay vs. Union of India case?
A: The main issue was whether the names of places named after foreign invaders should be renamed to uphold the Constitution of India and respect the fundamental rights of citizens.
Q: What was the Supreme Court’s decision in this case?
A: The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, stating that the reliefs sought should not be granted and that the questions of law raised by the petitioner do not arise.
Q: What were the main arguments made by the petitioner?
A: The petitioner argued that the continued use of names given by foreign invaders violates the fundamental rights to dignity, religion, and culture, and compromises national sovereignty.
Q: What was the Supreme Court’s reasoning for dismissing the petition?
A: The Supreme Court emphasized India’s secular nature, the need to move forward as a nation, and the importance of maintaining unity and harmony. The Court stated that the past should not dictate the present and future.
Q: What are the practical implications of this judgment?
A: This judgment implies that the courts will be cautious in entertaining petitions that seek to alter historical facts based on religious or cultural grounds. It underscores the importance of secularism and national unity.