75-Year-Old 'Bharat vs. India' Debate: Delhi HC directs Centre to follow SC order on replacing 'India' with these 2 names

New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has directed the Central Government to promptly address a long-standing petition seeking to replace the name "India" with "Bharat" or "Hindustan" in the Constitution, highlighting what the petitioner calls an "unfinished task" from the Constituent Assembly debates of 1948.

Join the Whatsapp Channel to Get News updates in english

Justice Sachin Datta, presiding over the case, allowed the petitioner to withdraw their plea to directly engage with the relevant ministries for resolution of the matter, which has remained pending despite a Supreme Court directive from June 3, 2020.

"After some hearing, senior counsel for the petitioner seeks to withdraw the present petition with leave to pursue the matter with the ministries concerned for disposal of the petitioner's representation in terms of the order dated June 3, 2020 passed by the Supreme Court...the present petition stands dismissed as withdrawn," Justice Datta noted in his order.

Four Years of Bureaucratic Shuffling

The petition's withdrawal comes after what the petitioner described as four years of bureaucratic inaction, during which their representation was reportedly shuffled between government departments without any substantive progress. The petitioner had filed an RTI application to track the progress of their representation, only to discover that no concrete action had been taken despite the Supreme Court's directive.

"The petitioner is left with no option but to approach this Court, as there has been no update from the respondents regarding any decision taken on the representation," the plea stated, highlighting the frustration that led to the current legal action.

Colonial Legacy vs. Cultural Identity

At the heart of the petition lies a fundamental question about national identity and decolonization. The petitioner argues that the name "India" represents a colonial legacy that fails to capture the country's civilizational ethos, whereas "Bharat" is deeply rooted in the nation's cultural and historical identity.

Article 1 of the Indian Constitution currently states: "India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States." The petition seeks to amend this article to establish "Bharat" or "Hindustan" as the sole name of the nation.

The petitioner's arguments echo discussions that took place during the Constituent Assembly debates on November 15, 1948, when extensive deliberations occurred regarding the official name of the newly independent nation. While many assembly members advocated for "Bharat" or "Hindustan," the final version of the Constitution retained both names, effectively leaving the matter unresolved.

"This petition seeks to complete that unfinished task by ensuring Bharat is the sole name of our nation," the plea emphasized, framing the current effort as a continuation of a 75-year-old constitutional conversation.

Successive Governments' Reluctance

The petition further alleged that successive governments, regardless of political affiliation, have shown reluctance to address this issue despite its cultural and historical significance. This reluctance persisted even after the Supreme Court's 2020 directive, which explicitly asked the government to consider the matter.

Justice Datta's current direction to the Centre reiterates the need for the government to honor the Supreme Court's previous order and provide a definitive response to the petitioner's representation.

Broader Decolonization Movement

The case comes amid a broader national conversation about decolonization and reclaiming pre-colonial identities. Several cities and landmarks across India have been renamed in recent years to reflect their historical names, replacing those imposed during British colonial rule.

The petition for replacing "India" with "Bharat" or "Hindustan" represents perhaps the most ambitious proposal in this movement, targeting the very name of the nation as enshrined in its founding document.

Next Steps

With the petition withdrawn, the focus now shifts to the ministries concerned, which will be expected to address the petitioner's representation in accordance with the Supreme Court's 2020 directive. The petitioner has indicated their intention to pursue the matter directly with these ministries.

Legal experts note that any amendment to Article 1 of the Constitution would require a constitutional amendment bill to be passed by both houses of Parliament with a two-thirds majority, followed by ratification by at least half of the state legislatures – a process that would involve significant political consensus.

As the matter returns to the executive branch for consideration, it remains to be seen whether the government will initiate the formal process of constitutional amendment or provide reasoned justification for maintaining the status quo.

Whatever the outcome, the case has reignited an important conversation about national identity, constitutional heritage, and the ongoing process of decolonization in India – or perhaps, in Bharat.