New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday sought the response of the Centre, states and Union territories to a plea seeking to rename India as "Bharat" on the ground that the name was originally conceived and adopted by the Constituent Assembly.
The PIL said this was explicit in Article 1 of the Constitution, which reads as "Article 1 in The Constitution Of India 1949
1. Name and territory of the Union
(1) India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States
(2) The States and the territories thereof shall be as specified in the First Schedule
(3) The territory of India shall comprise...."
A bench of Chief Justice H.L. Dattu and Justice Arun Mishra issued notices on the PIL filed by Niranjan Bhatwal, a Maharashtra-based social activist, through counsel Ajay G. Majithia and Rahul Pandey.
Bhatwal pleaded that his representation to Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Union home minister Rajnath Singh and others had failed to evoke any positive response.
Last November, the apex court had asked Bhatwal to first approach the Centre with his plea and given him the liberty to approach the court again if not satisfied with the response.
Bhatwal said he had been forced to approach the court again as there had been no positive response from the Centre nearly six months of making the representation.
The petition claimed that on Sunday, 18th September 1949, the Constituent Assembly of India had met in the Constitution Hall, New Delhi, at 9 o'clock, and debated the namakaranor a naming ceremony for the newborn country. In that context, various suggestions had been put forward on a proper name that should be given to the Indian Republic.
The prominent suggestions included "Bharat", "Hindustan", "Hind", "Bharatbhumi" or Bharatvarsh etc.
The Constituent Assembly, after an elaborate consideration of the issues on 18th September 1949, passed a resolution saying: "India, that is, Bharat shall be a Union of States".
The Drafting Committee, in the final draft, wrote: "Name and territory of the Union. (1) India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States."
The petitioner said the use of the name "Bharat", in lieu of India, was the true intention of the Constituent Assembly appending the name "Bharat" in Article 1 of the Constitution of India.
Quoting Hindu scriptures, the petition said the term "Bharat" referred to the whole earth, as emperor "Bharat" is said to have ruled the whole earth.
Till the death of Maharaja Parikshit, the last formidable emperor of the Kuru dynasty, the whole world was known as "Bharatvarsh". Besides, the world was ruled by a noble emperor, "Bharat", as mentioned in the Rig Veda, the petition said.
It urged the court to direct the Centre, states, Union territories, NGOs and corporate houses to use the expression "Bharat" in all their official and unofficial communication and restrain them from using the word "India" in them.
No comments:
Post a Comment