Editorial

Source: IE

Introduction

A G20 meeting is scheduled for the 09-10 of September 2023. The official invitations for the G20 dinner have been sent by the Indian President under the head of ‘President of Bharat’ instead of ‘President of India’.

This transformation in nomenclature has also been incorporated in the official G20 meet booklet which marks a major step at the international stage. The aforementioned step by the Government of India has become a bone of contention which is leading to debates over the legality of changing the nomenclature of the Country.

Legal Position of Renaming the Country

• Preamble:
  • The preamble is considered as the preface of the sovereign principles enshrined in the Constitution of India, 1950. It begins with the words “We the People of India”.
  • However, the preamble enshrined in the Hindi version of the Constitution has the word ‘Bharat’ in the place of India which means that the term is interchangeable but not mutually destructive.
• Article 1:
  • Article 1 of the Constitution specifically denotes that it recognizes the term ‘Bharat’ which means ‘Bharat’ is also an official name of the nation and not merely a translation of ‘India’.
  • The marginal note of Article 1 provides the name and territory of the Union.
    • Clause 1 of the Article states, India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States.
  • However, apart from this article, the term ‘Bharat’ is used nowhere in the Constitution in the place of ‘India’.
• Authorities in Constitution:
  • Article 52: States that there shall be a President of India who shall have the executive power of the Union.
  • Article 76: States that the President shall appoint an Attorney General for India to give advice to the Government of India upon such legal matters, and to perform such other duties of a legal character.
  • Article 124: States that there shall be a Supreme Court of India consisting of a Chief Justice of India (CJI).
• Opinion of the Supreme Court:
  • The SC has rejected pleas to change the name of India to Bharat twice in 2016 and 2020.
  • The plea in 2020 was filed on the ground that such renaming will “ensure the citizens of this country to get over the colonial past”.
  • Former CJI S. A. Bobde, while rejecting the plea observed that names Bharat and India are both names enshrined in the Constitution and hence SC cannot change the name.
  • However, the court said that the petitioner is allowed to make a representation before the government regarding this issue.

Opinions of Constituent Assembly on Renaming the Country

• A drafting committee was set up by Constituent Assembly on 19.08.1947 to draft a constitution for the nation under the Chairmanship of Dr. B R Ambedkar.
• The name ‘India’ and "Bharat" for the country became a major topic of discussion during the Constituent Assembly Debate on 18.09.1949.
• Constituent Assembly member and Forward Bloc leader Hari Vishnu Kamath proposed to substitute Article 1 of the Constitution with the following:
  • Bharat or, in the English language, India, shall be a Union of States. Or
  • Hind, or, in the English language, India, shall be a Union of States.
• Another member of the assembly, Govind Vallabh Pant suggested that “we should have the word “Bharat” or “Bharat Varsha” in place of India”.
  • He further contended that, why the members of the assembly are attached to word ‘India’, a name which was given to our country by foreigners who having heard of the riches of this land were tempted towards it and had robbed us of our freedom.
• However, all the proposed amendments were negatived when the President Dr. Rajendra Prasad put the amendment to vote, the Article remained “India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States”.

Legal Requirements of Changing Name of the Country

• The name ‘Bharat’ has historical and cultural significance in India, as it is derived from ancient Indian texts such as Mahabharata, Manusmriti and the name of Emperor Bharata.
  • It represents the country’s traditional name and its cultural aspects including the country’s historical legacy.
• However, the adoption of ‘India’ as the official name was a deliberate choice made by the framers of the Constitution to reflect the country's geographical and administrative identity.
• Interchanging of India to Bharat on official invitations is legally permissible but removing any term such as ‘India’ from the Constitution would require a Constitutional amendment.
  • The name ‘India’ is mentioned in the Preamble to the Constitution, which is considered a part of the Constitution itself.
• The process of amending the Constitution is outlined in Article 368.
  • It involves passing a bill in both houses of Parliament with a special majority (two-thirds majority of the members present and voting) and ratification by at least half of the state legislatures.
• Changing the name of India to Bharat will impact upon the constitutional mandate of using English language in legal proceedings and enactments.
  • Article 348(1) (a) of the Constitution of India provides that all proceedings in the SC and in every HC shall be in English language until Parliament by law otherwise provides.
  • Also, sub-clause (b) of the Article states that the authoritative texts of all bills, acts, orders, rules, regulations and bye laws issued under the Constitution or under any law made by Parliament or the Legislature of a State, shall be in the English language.
• The said amendment will result into amending the existing enactments whose extent of applicability is mentioned to be within or beyond the territory of India.

Conclusion

• As India is the World’s Largest Democracy, changing of nomenclature could face legal challenges, with arguments related to the Constitution's identity, secularism, and the need for wider public concurrence.
• India's name is recognized globally, and such a change would require diplomatic efforts to ensure that other nations recognize and accept the new name.
• Any decision regarding changing of name would need to take into account the diverse and pluralistic nature of India's society and its historical and constitutional context.