A fresh petition has been filed in the Delhi High Court urging the Union Government to consider renaming India as ‘Bharat’ by amending Article 1 of the Constitution. The plea, submitted by petitioner Namaha, revives a long-standing debate over the country’s official name, emphasizing cultural identity and shedding colonial legacies.
Background of the Case
The petition follows a 2020 Supreme Court directive, where a similar plea was dismissed but treated as a representation to the government. Namaha’s legal team argues that despite the court’s order, no action has been taken by authorities over the past three years. The petitioner claims his repeated attempts to seek updates through the Right to Information (RTI) Act yielded unclear responses, with the matter being shuffled between departments, including the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha.
“The petitioner has been running from pillar to post to learn the status of his representation, which remains unaddressed by the Union of India,” states the plea.
The petition stresses that the name ‘India’ does not reflect the nation’s cultural heritage, while ‘Bharat’ holds historical and emotional significance. It argues that Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees citizens the right to identify with their country’s authentic name.
Read Also:- Supreme Court's Decision on Rohingya Children's School Admission: Apply First, Approach High Court If Denied
“Renaming India as Bharat will help citizens shed colonial baggage and embrace their roots,” the plea highlights. It also cites recent renaming of cities like Allahabad to Prayagraj as steps toward reclaiming indigenous identity.
On February 4, Justice Sachin Datta of the Delhi High Court heard the case. Government counsel sought additional time to review the plea, pushing the next hearing to March 12. The Union of India, Ministry of Law and Justice, and Parliament Secretariat are key respondents.
The matter will now be heard on March 12.
Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. Sanjeev Sagar (Sr. Adv) along with Mr. Ashutosh Thakur, Mr. Aabhas Parmal, Advs
Counsel for Respondents: Ms. Nidhi Raman (CGSC) along with Mr. Arnav Mittal (GP) and Mr. Zubin Singh, Adv. for R1 & R4; Mr. Sandeep Kumar Mahapatra, Mr. Sugam Kumar Jha, Mr. Trbhuvan, Mr. Raghav Tandon, Mr. Mahesh Baluni (AEO-RSS), Advs. for R-3; Mr. Pramod Gupta, Adv. for Lok Sabha
Case Title: NAMAHA v. Union of India & Ors.