No Need To Rename India As 'Bharat', Government Tells Supreme Court

16/11/2015 9:58 AM IST | Updated 15/07/2016 8:25 AM IST
NEW! HIGHLIGHT AND SHARE
Highlight text to share via Facebook and Twitter
Kutay Tanir via Getty Images
Flag of India

There is no need to rename India as Bharat, the government has told the Supreme Court, according to the Indian Express.

The Article 1 (1) of the Constitution says that "name and territory of the Union.—(1) India, that is Bharat, shall be

a Union of States" and the Home Ministry has told the court that "there is no change in circumstances to consider any change in Article 1 of the Constitution of India," according to the report.

In its affidavit the MHA has said issues regarding the country’s name have been deliberated upon extensively by the Constituent Assembly during drafting of the Constitution and there was no need for a review.

The Supreme Court had sought comments from the Centre and the states on a plea demanding change in the name of the country from 'India' to 'Bharat', PTI reported in April this year.

A bench comprising Chief Justice H L Dattu and Justice Arun Mishra had issued the notice to all state governments and union territories on the PIL which called for restraining the Centre from using the name of India for any government purposes and in official papers.

The petition filed by Niranjan Bhatwal, claiming to be a social activist from Maharashtra, said that even the non-government organisations and corporates should be directed to use 'Bharat' for all official and unofficial purposes.

The PIL said in the Constituent Assembly, the prominent suggestions for naming the country were "Bharat, Hindustan, Hind and Bharatbhumi or Bharatvarsh and names of that kind".

Among the various questions raised in the PIL were whether insertion of India in Article 1 of the Constitution was just for reference, in order to repeal the Government of India Act 1935, and the Indian Independence Act 1947, wherein this country had been referred to as India, and sought to be repealed by Article 395 of the Constitution.

Further, it asked whether insertion of 'India' was mere referential for de-jure recognition of the country by countries of other parts of the world for diplomatic purposes.

The PIL also said whether Hindi language excerpts of Article 1 Clause 1 of the Constitution denotes the same meaning, as it denotes in the English language of the Constitution in relation to establish the name of the country. (With inputs from PTI)

Like Us On Facebook |
Follow Us On Twitter |
Contact HuffPost India

Also on HuffPost:

Been there. Done that. What's Next? 8 Epic Travel Adventures for 2016

More On This Topic