According to former Lok Sabha secretary general PDT Achary, rules of procedure prohibit the Constitution from being altered through a resolution in Parliament. He further notes that any change to the country’s name will necessitate other Constitutional amendments.
An unexpected controversy has been sparked by a dinner invitation sent on President Droupadi Murmu’s behalf to international leaders traveling in New Delhi this week for the G20 Summit. The fact that Murmu’s title on the invitation is “President of Bharat” rather than “President of India,” as has traditionally been the case, has sparked rumors that the Prime Minister Narendra Modi-led government at the Centre is considering a proposal to formally rename the nation Bharat and remove the word “India” from the Constitution entirely.
Tuesday’s media reports that the Centre could introduce a resolution to this effect during the five-day special session of the Parliament, which will be held from September 18–22, gave rise to more rumors. On its part, the government has dismissed rumors about the name change as untrue, but it has criticized opposition parties for objecting to the usage of the Bharat nomenclature.
How does the Constitution’s Article 1 apply to the discussion?
The overall constitutional framework is established by Article 1 of the Constitution. The nation’s federal system, name, and sovereign territory are all spelled out in this critical declaration, along with other important details.
Article 1’s wording declares that “India, that is, Bharat, shall be a Union of States.” Any change to the nation’s name will necessitate amending Article 1 of the Constitution.
However, according to constitutional experts, if and when the Centre proposes a resolution to change the nation’s name, the procedure will call for multiple revisions to the Constitution. PDT Achary, a constitutional expert and former secretary general of the Lok Sabha, told Financial Express Digital that it would take a herculean effort.
“First and foremost, the name of the nation (India, i.e., Bharat), as stated in Article 1 of the Constitution, will need to be modified. The subject is India’s federal government, and the name of the nation is included.
Can ‘India’ become ‘Bharat’ with a resolution in Parliament?
According to Achary, there is no process in place that would allow the Constitution to be changed through a House resolution. “The government is rumored to be sending a resolution to the House. There is no process by which a resolution may be introduced or the Constitution changed. Such a technique is not recognized by the constitutional principles of procedure, the speaker claims.
‘India that is Bharat’
Experts speculate that the current administration may have been told to use the names interchangeably or alternatively, meaning that they can continue to refer to India as “Bharat” without making any changes. That perception, however, might not be accurate.
“‘Bharat’ is a descriptive word. India is the name of the nation. There can only be one official name for a nation. Having multiple official names can only lead to confusion, both inside and outside of the nation. “‘Bharat’ is not recognized as the official name of the nation by the Constitution,” claims Achary.
In response to a question, numerous ministers cited the Constitution, which states that either of the two names can be used to refer to the nation officially and uses the phrase “India, that is Bharat.”
According to experts, the current government may have been urged to use the names interchangeably or alternatively, suggesting that they can use “Bharat” in place of “India” without making any changes. That perception might not be accurate, though.
“The term ‘Bharat’ is a descriptor. The nation is called India. A nation may only have one official name. Multiple official names will simply increase confusion, both inside and outside the country. ‘Bharat’ is not recognized as the nation’s official name under the Constitution,’ claims Achary.
In response to a question, numerous ministers cited the Constitution, which states that “India, that is Bharat,” can be used to refer to the nation in either official capacity.
“There is not a single article of the Constitution that uses the name Bharat. There is just India. The Republic of India is the official name of the nation. However, there must be a term in Hindi because it is the official language of the Union according to the Constitution. Hindi translations are necessary. Therefore, we utter “Bharat ke Rashtrapati.” But nowhere in the Constitution will you find the word “Rashtrapati.” The word President is the only one mentioned.
Achary points out that even the Hindi version of the Constitution, authenticated by the constituent Assembly, Article 1 is worded as “Bharat arthaat India”. “India is the official name here as well. That makes it clear that India is the official name of the country.”
As stated by the Supreme Court in 2016: “India or Bharat”
A PIL that demanded that the Bharat nomenclature be used for all purposes instead of India was dismissed in 2016 by a Supreme Court panel that included the former Chief Justice of India, TS Thakur, and Justice UU Lalit. India’s “Bharat… Go ahead and call it Bharat if you want to. If someone wants to refer to it as India, let him. The court had ruled that there had been no change in circumstances warranting revision of Article 1 of the Indian Constitution.
