Constitution of India – Article 32, 14 – Petition filed seeking directions – to the Home Ministry to constitute a Renaming Commission to find out original names of ancient historical cultural religious places, named after barbaric foreign invaders; to the ASI to research and publish their initial names; to the Centre and State Governments to update their websites and records – Held: Secularism has been accepted as a facet of the basic structure of the Constitution – Bharat is a secular nation committed to securing fundamental rights to all sections as contemplated in the Constitution – Governance of Bharat must conform to Rule of law, secularism, constitutionalism of which Article 14 stands out as the guarantee of both equality and fairness in the State’s action – Reliefs sought not granted by this Court acting as the guardian of fundamental rights of all u/Article 32.
Dismissing the writ petition, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Secularism has been accepted as a facet of the basic structure of the Constitution. The present and future of a country cannot remain a prisoner of the past. The governance of Bharat must conform to Rule of law, secularism, constitutionalism of which Article 14 stands out as the guarantee of both equality and fairness in the State’s action. The founding fathers contemplated India to be a republic which is not merely to be conflated to a body polity having an elected President which is the conventional understanding. But it also involves ensuring rights to all sections of people based on it being a democracy. It is important that the country must move forward. For achieving the sublime goals which are enshrined in Part IV – that is the Directive Principles, but bearing in mind the fundamental rights also guaranteed in Part III of the Constitution, which have been described as the two wheels of the chariot of the State, both of which are indispensable, for the smooth progress of the nation, actions must be taken which bond all sections of the society together. [Paras 5, 9 and 10][188-B; 193-A-C]
1.2 The history of any nation cannot haunt the future generations of a nation to the point that succeeding generations become prisoners of the past. The golden principle of fraternity which again is enshrined in the preamble is of the greatest importance and rightfully finds its place in the preamble as a constant reminder to all stakeholders that maintenance of harmony between different sections alone will lead to the imbibing of a true notion of nationhood bonding sections together for the greater good of the nation and finally, establish a sovereign democratic republic. Courts of law, as indeed every part of the ‘State’, must be guided by the sublime realisation, that Bharat is a secular nation committed to securing fundamental rights to all sections as contemplated in the Constitution. The reliefs which have been sought for should not be granted by this Court acting as the guardian of fundamental rights of all under Article 32 of the Constitution of India and bearing in mind the values which a Court must keep uppermost in its mind - the preamble gives clear light in this direction. [Paras 11, 12][193-D-F]
His Holiness Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru v. State of Kerala and Another (1973) 4 SCC 225 : [1973]
0 Suppl. SCR 1; S.R. Bommai and Others v. Union of India and Others (1994) 3 SCC 1 : [1994] 2 SCR 644 – followed.
State of Karnataka v. Praveen Bhai Thogadia (Dr.) (2004) 4 SCC 684 : [2004] 3 SCR 652; M.P.
Gopalakrishnan Nair v. State of Kerala (2005) 11 SCC
45 : [2005] 3 SCR 712 – relied on.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.