The supreme Court's direction to consider a representation to modify the Constitution and substitute "Bharat" or "Hindustan" for the word "India" has been quickly followed by the delhi High Court. The petitioner was also permitted to withdraw his suit in this regard by Justice Sachin Datta.
The march 12 order stated: "After some hearing, the petitioner's senior counsel requests permission to withdraw the current petition and pursue the matter with the relevant ministries for the resolution of the petitioner's representation by the supreme Court's june 3, 2020 order. The current petition is withdrawn and rejected.
It further stated that the Center's legal team should properly inform the relevant ministries to ensure prompt adherence to the supreme Court's ruling. After receiving the petitioner's initial motion, the supreme court ordered in 2020 that the petition be handled as a submission that the relevant ministries might take into consideration.
Sanjeev Sagar, a renowned lawyer, represented petitioner Namaha, who then petitioned the high court for an order for the authorities to decide on his representation.
"The petitioner is left with no option but to approach this court, by way of the present petition as there is no update from the respondents about any decision taken on the representation of the petitioner," the plea stated.
It claimed that changing the country's name from "India" to "Bharat" would assist its people in shedding their "colonial baggage" because the english term did not accurately reflect the nation's culture and traditions.
Therefore, the plea attempted to change Article 1 of the Constitution, which addresses the Union's name and territory.
According to the petition, there was a "strong wave" in favor of designating the nation "Bharat" or "Hindustan" even at that time, citing the 1948 Constituent assembly debate on Article 1 of the then-draft constitution.
"However, now the time is ripe to recognize the country by its original and authentic name, i.e., Bharat especially when our cities have been renamed to identify with the indian ethos," it continued.
The march 12 order stated: "After some hearing, the petitioner's senior counsel requests permission to withdraw the current petition and pursue the matter with the relevant ministries for the resolution of the petitioner's representation by the supreme Court's june 3, 2020 order. The current petition is withdrawn and rejected.
It further stated that the Center's legal team should properly inform the relevant ministries to ensure prompt adherence to the supreme Court's ruling. After receiving the petitioner's initial motion, the supreme court ordered in 2020 that the petition be handled as a submission that the relevant ministries might take into consideration.
Sanjeev Sagar, a renowned lawyer, represented petitioner Namaha, who then petitioned the high court for an order for the authorities to decide on his representation.
"The petitioner is left with no option but to approach this court, by way of the present petition as there is no update from the respondents about any decision taken on the representation of the petitioner," the plea stated.
It claimed that changing the country's name from "India" to "Bharat" would assist its people in shedding their "colonial baggage" because the english term did not accurately reflect the nation's culture and traditions.
Therefore, the plea attempted to change Article 1 of the Constitution, which addresses the Union's name and territory.
According to the petition, there was a "strong wave" in favor of designating the nation "Bharat" or "Hindustan" even at that time, citing the 1948 Constituent assembly debate on Article 1 of the then-draft constitution.
"However, now the time is ripe to recognize the country by its original and authentic name, i.e., Bharat especially when our cities have been renamed to identify with the indian ethos," it continued.
