IN A PIL in mainly three questions were raised;
1) Is it right time to declare that original name of India was Bharat, before East India Company came to Bharat? Should the country now be known as Bharat?
2) Why CITY name changes proposals, are sent by States to Center even if there is no such provision in Constitution, nor there is any Parliament Law in this regard?
3) Why such City Name Change proposals are pending with Central Government since 10 years or more? Can SC fix some time limit to decide City Name Change Proposals? (In para 13 below, names change proposals of 10 cities are pending.as per details on net)
At request on some friends on twitter, I have placed here a copy of PIL, which was filed and dismissed, as it is not possible for courts to give such directions as prayed.
I think that petition is rightly dismissed as these issues are for political parties to agitate.
The copy of PIL is uploaded here with consent of client Shri Ketankumar. You can contact him if you want to support him to take up these issues with political parties.
Copy of PIL:-
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (C) No________ OF 2013
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India)
IN THE MATTER OF:
Ketankumar Vasudevbhai PatelPetitioner
Versus
Union of India & Anr. Respondents
PAPER BOOK
(FOR INDEX PLEASE SEE INSIDE)
ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER: HARESH RAICHURA
-------------------------------------
I N D E X
Sl.No.
Particulars
Pages
1.
Listing Performa
2.
Synopsis & List of dates
3.
Writ Petition (C) with Affidavit.
4.
ANNEXURE P-1: A true copy of the representation dated 16.11.2012.
------------------------------------
SYNOPSIS & LIST OF DATES
It is most humbly submitted that this petition U/Art. 32 are in the nature of Public Interest Litigation where citizens rights U/Art. 14 and 19 are required to be enforced and where certain actions of Central Government regarding City name change proposals, which are not supported by Law of Parliament, are challenged.
The short list of dates is as under:-
1700
The name Bharat was change to India by British Rule.
1902
There was an Act called imperial Library Act 1902.
1947
India gained freedom.
8.Sep 1948
Imperial Library (change of name) Act 1948 was passed the statements of objects and reasons read.
“ In view of the Constitutional changes in the Country it is appropriate that the World “Imperial” is associated with National Institutions on India. It has, therefore, been decided to change the name of Imperial Library Calcutta. The Bill seeks to ensure that the relevant references to Imperial Library in Act 1902 are construed as reference to the National Library.”
26.Nov.1950
Constitution of India came into force.
2012
From 1950 till today, there are three procedures of name change is in practice.
() For change of name of State, procedure is prescribed in Art. 3 (e) of the Constitution of India.
() For change of name of Union Territory, procedure is prescribing U/Art. 3 (e) of the Act.
() For name of change of City, there is no Law that proposal of name change of a City in a State, is required to be approved by Central Government.
However, there is a practice, being followed prior to Independence 1947 that whenever a name of a City is required to be change, the proposal has to be sent to Central Government and name can be changed only after approval of Central Government.
No timelimt is fixed under which Central Government is required to clear the proposal to change name.
16.11.2012
Petitioner made representation to respondent to clear name change proposals of 11 City’s pending since many years and
also to declare / notify Bharat as official name of India.
The petitioner is however not seeking relief regarding later part of representation. Since it is in domain of parliament.
Feb.2013
Since many proposal remain undecided for 10 years or and since about 10 such proposals change of names of City are pending undecided, since many years, the present petition is filed to seek suitable guidelines / direction (as per para 13 of petition).
Hence this petition.
------------------------
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (C) No.125 OF 2013
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India)
IN THE MATTER OF:
Ketan Kumar Vasudevbhai Patel
R/o 15/A, Mhalal Park
Opp. Smeshwar Park-3
Theltej Ahmedabad - 380054
(Gujarat)Petitioner
Versus
1. Union of India
Through Chief Secretary
Office of Hon’ble Prime Minister of India
South Block, Raisina Hill
New Delhi- 110001.. Respondents.
--------------------------------
WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA.
To
The Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India
And His other Companion Judges of
The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
The Writ Petition of the petitioner above named
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH:
1.It is most humbly submitted that petitioner is a citizen of India and is entitled to approach this Hon’ble Court U/Art. 32 of the Constitution of India, by way of this Public Interest Petition.
2.It is most humbly submitted that this petition U/Art. 32 are in the nature of Public Interest Litigation where citizens rights U/Art. 14 and 19 are required to be enforced and where certain actions of Central Government regarding City name change proposals, which are not supported by Law of Parliament are challenged.
3.GUIDELINES OF PIL UNDER WHICH THIS PETITION IS MADE.
It is most humbly submitted that this Hon’ble Court has laid down various guidelines for filing Public Interest Litigation. It is humble view of the petitioner that this petition may fall into following criteria laid down for Public Interest Litigation.
(i) That the person or a group of persons were approaching the court in public interest for redressal of public injury arising fro the breach of public duty or from violation of some provision of the Constitutional law.
(ii) That such person or group of persons is not a busybody of meddlesome interloper and have not approached with mala fide intention of vindicating their personal vengeance or grievance.
(iii) That the process of public interest litigation was not being abused by politicians or other busybodies for political or unrelated objective. Every default on the part of the State or Public Authority being not justifiable in such litigation.
(iv) That the litigation initiated in public interest was such that if not remedied or prevented would weaken the faith of the common man in the institution of the judiciary and the democratic set up of the country.
(v) Public interest litigation may be initiated either upon a petition filed or on the basis of a letter or other information received but upon satisfaction that the information laid before the court was of such a nature which required examination.
(vi) That the person approaching the court has come with clean hands, clear heart and clean objectives.
(vii) That before taking any action in public interest the court must be satisfied that its forum was not being misused by any unscrupulous litigant, politicians, busybody or persons or groups with mala fide objective of either for vindication of their personal grievance or by resorting to blackmailing or considerations extraneous to public interest.
4.LOCUS STANDI OF PETITIONER.
3.1It is humbly submitted that petitioner is not member of any political party and he has no Hidden Motives in filing this petition
3.2The petitioner is not filing this petition for Hidden Motive of seeking any publicity.
3.3Petitioner is citizen of India and he is genuine concerned with the subject matter and since one year he has been looking for Answers in the subject matter.
3.4The petitioner often visits US and his friends abroad are also concerned with the subject matter and they also requesting petitioner to bring the subject issue to the notice of Hon’ble Apex Court.
3.5The petitioner has placed all available material in public domain before Hon’ble Court.
3.6Petitioner is qualified as B.Com petitioner is filing this PIL petition only at his on expenses. He is no funded by any one to file this petition.
3.7The petitioner has no litigation pending in any Court of India which may be even remotely connected to the issue.
5.CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS & DECISIONS REGARDING NAME CHANGE OF STATE AND UNION TERRITORYS IN THIS PETITION.
“Art.3 (e) Parliament may by law- (a) form a new Sate by separation of territory from any State or by uniting two or more States or parts of States by uniting any territory to a part of any State:
(b) Increase the area of any state,
(c) Diminish the area of any state,
(d) Alter the boundaries of any state,
(e) alter the name of any State,
Provided that no Bill for the purpose shall be introduced in either House of Parliament except in the Bill affects the area, boundaries or name of any of the States,…. The Bill has been referred by the President to the Legislature of that State for expressing its views thereon within such period as may be specified in the reference or within such further period as the President may allow and the period so specified or allowed has expired.
Explanation I. In this article, in clauses (a) to (e), “State” includes a Union territory, but in the proviso, “State” does not include a Union Territory.
Explanation II. The power conferred on Parliament by clause (a) includes the power to form a new State or Union territory by uniting a part of any State or Union territory to any other State or Union territory.”
6.PROVISIONS OF LAW REGARDING NAME CHANGE OF CITIES IN VARIOUS STATES.
For name of change of City, there is no Law that proposal of name change of a City in a State, is required to be approved by Central Government. However, there is a practice, being followed prior to Independence 1947 that wherever a name of a City is required to be change, the proposal has to be sent to Central Government and name can be changed only after approval of Central Government. No timelimit is fixed under which Central Government is required to clear the proposal to change name.
ONE EXAMPLE
One such example is about proposal to change name of Ahmedabad to Karnavati. For 10 years no decision was taken by Central Government and therefore finally the State Government was forced to drop the Name Change proposal
7.THERE ARE MANY SUCH OTHER PENDING PROPOSALS FOR CHANGE OF NAME CITIES ARE PENDING SINCE YEAR BECAUSE NO TIMELIMIT IS FIXED BY CENTRAL GOVERNMENT TO APPROVE OR DISAPPROVE SUCH PROPOSALS.
The said names are detailed in para_______ and ______ pending undecided since many years which are citied in paragraph no. 13 proposal in this petition.
8.PREVIOUS DECISION OF HON’BLE THIS COURT BY WHICH THE PETITIONER IS MANLY INSPIRED.
The judgment of this Hon’ble Court in case of (Dr. Subramaniyam Swamy Vs. Dr. Manmohan Singh), where it is held that when no time limit is prescribe decision has to be made within reasonable time and this Hon’ble Court has fixed 3 months time limit to take decision.
Relying on above precedent, the petitioner desires that this Hon’ble Court may in public interest lay down some timelimit for accepting or rejecting name change proposal. In absence of such time limit, it is possible that Ruling Party may take no decision on name change proposal coming from States where Ruling Party is not in power. Therefore, the Central Government may fail to exercise its Federal duties and desires and wills of a particulars State may be unjustly and arbitrary denied. It is humbly submitted that therefore this writ petition should be allowed to the extant of fixing time limit for clearing name change proposals of cities coming from State Government.
9.NAME CHANGE PROPOSAL OF STATES SO FAR CLEARED BY CENTRAL GOVERNMENT U/ART. 3 (E) OF THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT OF INDIA BETWEEN 1950 TO 2012.
1.Travancore Cochin to Kerala (Change effective from 1 November 1956)
2.Madhya Bharat to Madhya Pradesh (Change effective from 1 November, 1959)
3.Madras State to Tamil Nadu (Change effective from 14 January 1969).
4.Mysore to Kamataka (change effective from 1 November, 1973).
5.Uttaranchal to Uttarakhand (change effective from 1 January, 2007).
6.Assam to Asom (not yet effective)
7.Orissa respelled Odisha (official as of November 2011).
8.West Bengal to Paschim Banga (approved by state legislature during September 2011).
10.NAME CHANGE PROPOSAL OF UNION TERRITORIES SO FAR CLEARED BY CENTRAL GOVERNMENT.
1.Laccadive, Minicoy and Amindivi Islands to Lakshadweep (change effective from 1 November 1973)
2.Pondicherry to Puducherry (change effective from 1 October 2006).
11.NAME CHANGE PROPOSALS OF STATES WHICH ARE NOT CLEARED BY CENTRAL GOVERNMENT AS PER INFORMATION AVAILABLE TO PETITIONER.
1.Kerala to Keralam
12.NAME CHANGE PROPOSAL OF CITIES WHICH ARE CLEARED BY CENTRAL GOVERNMENT AS PER AVAILABLE INFORMATION OF THE PETITIONER.
Andhra Pradesh
1.Elgandal to Karimnagar
2.Indur to Nizamabad
3.Metuku to Medak
4.Paalamuru to Mahoonagar
5.Ellore to Eluru (change effective 1949)
6.Waitair to Vizagapatam
7.Vizagapatam to Vishakapatnam
8.Bezawada to Vijayawada
9.Cuddapah to Kadapa
10.Ongole Dist. To Prakasham
11.Nellore Dist. To Pottisriramulu Nellore
12.Cocanada to Kakinada
13.Masulipatam to (Machilipatanam)
Assam
1.Nowgong to Nagaon
2.Gauhati to Guwahati (change effective 1983)
3. Sibsagar to Sivasagar
Gujarat
1.Baroda to Vadodara (change effective 1974)
2.Cambay to Khambhat
3.Bulsar to Valsad
Himachal Pradesh
1.Simla to Shimla
2.Mandav Nagar to Mandi
Kerala
1.Trivandrum to Thiruvananthapuram (change effective from 1991)
2.Cochin to Kochi (change effective from 1996)
3.Calicut to Kozhikode
4.Quilon to Kollam
5.Trichur to Thrissur
6.Cannanore to Kannur
7.Palghat to Palakkad
8.Alleppey to Alappuzha (change effective from 1990)
9.Alwaye to Aluva
10.Parur to North Paravur
11.Cranganore to Kodungallur
12.Tellicherry to Thalassery
13.Badagara to Vatakara
14.Palai to Pala
15.Verapoly to Varapuzha
16.Cherpalchery to Cherpulasseri
17.Koney to Konni
Madhya Pradesh
1.Ahilyanagari/ Indur to indore
2.Avantika to Ujjain
3.Bhelsa to Vidisha
4.Rassen to Raisen
5.Saugor to Sagar
6.Jubbulpore to Jabalpur
7.Bhopal Bairagarh to Sant Hirda Ram Nagar, Bhopal.
8.Bellasgate to Bheraghat
9.Ojjain to Ujjaini
10.Mandu to Mandavgarh
Maharashtra
1.Bombay to Mumbai
Pondicherry
1.Pondicherry to Puducherry (change effective from 1 October 2006)
2.Yanaon to Yanam (change effective from merger with Indian Union)
Punjab
1.Jullunder to Jalandhar
2.Ropar to Rupnagar
3.Mohali to SAS Nagar
Tamil Nadu
1. Coimbatore to Koyamutthoor (change effective 1972)
2. Tinnevelly to Tirunelveli
3. Tranquebar to Tharangambadi
4. Trichinopoly to Tiruchirapalli (change effective 1971)
5. Madras to Chennai (change effective August 1996)
6. Tanjore to Thanjavur
7. Tuticorin to Thoothukudi
8. Cape Comorin to Kanyakumari
9. Ootacamund to Udagamandalam
10. Conjeevaram to Kanchipuram
11. Conjeevaram to Kanchipuram
12. Virudupatti to Virudhunagar
13. Potonovo to Parangipettai
14. Mayavaram to Mayiladuthurai
Uttar Pradesh
1.Cawnpore to Kanpur (change effective 1948)
2.Benares to Varanasi (change effective 1956)
West Bengal
1.Calcutta to Kolkata (change effective from 1 January 2001)
2.Burdwan to Bardhaman.
13.NAME CHANGE PROPOSAL OF CITIES WHICH ARE PROPOSED BUT ARE PENDING FOR THE APPROVAL OF CENTRAL GOVERNMENT SINCE YEARS.
0.(Ahmedabad to Karnavati (Proposal Dropped as it was not decided for decade).
1.Allahabad to Prayag
2.Aurangabad to Sambhajinagar
3.Bhopal to Bhojpal
4.Delhi to Indraprastha
5.Indore back to Induru
6.Mughalsarai to Deen Dayal Nagar
7.Patna to Pataliputra
8.Mysore to Mysooru
9.Mangalore to Mangaluru
10.Alibag to Shribag
14.NAME CHANGE PROPOSAL WHICH ARE PROBABLY NOT JUSTICEABLE BUT SINCE THIS HON’BLE COURT HAS VAST POWER TO MOULD RELIEF, THE SAME ARE MENTIONED BELOW:-
14.1The Union Government may be directed if Your Lordships think fit that after 65 years of End of Colonial Rule, the English name India should be dropped and name Bharat should be restored.
14.2The name India was known in Old English, and was used in King Alfred’s translation of Orosius. In Middle English the name was, under French influence, replaced by Ynde or Inde, which entered Early Modern English as Indie. The name India then came back to English usage from the 17th century onwards, and may be due to the influence of Latin, or Spanish or Portuguese.
14.3It is desire of the petitioner that the 17th Century name “India” may be dropped by Government because colonial Rule ended 1947 and now “India” should be known as Bharat in English as well as in Indian language.
14.4Bharata is the official Sanskrit name of the country, Bharata Ganarajya, and the name is derived from the ancient Indian texts, the Puranas, which refers to the land the comprises India as Bharata var Sam, and uses this term to distinguish it from other var Sas of or continents. For example, the Vayu Puranas says he who conquers the whole of Bharata – varsa is celebrated as a samrat (Vayu Purana 45, 86).
14.5Until the death of Maharaja Parikshit, the last formidable emperor of the Kuru dynasty, the known world was known as Bharata varsha.
14.6According to the most popular theory the name Bharata is the vrddhi of Bharata, a king mentioned in Rigveda.
14.7The Sanskrit word bharata is a vrddhi derivation of bharata, which was originally an epithet of Agni. The term is a verbal noun of the Sanskrit root bhr. “to bear / to carry”, with a literal meaning of “to be maintained” (of fire). The root bhr is cognate with the English verb to bear and Latin fero. This term also means “one who is engaged in searel for knowledge”.
14.8According to the Puranas, this country is known as Bharatavasha after the king Bharata Chakravarti. This has been mentioned in Vishnu Purana (2,1,31), Vayu Purana, (33,52) Linga Purana (1,47,23) Brahmanda Purana (14,5,62), Agni Purana (107,11-12), Skanda Purana, Khanda (37,57) and Markandaya Purana (50,41) it is clearly stated that this country is known as Bharata Varsha.
14.9Petitioner made representation to respondent to clear name change proposals of 11 City’s pending since many years and also to declare / notify Bharat as official name of India. The petitioner is however not seeking relief regarding later part of representation. Since it is in domain of parliament.
A true copy of the representation dated 16.11.2012 is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure P/1 (page no._________).
15.REPRESENTATION MADE BY PETITIONER.
It is humbly submitted that before filing the present writ petition. The petitioner has made a representation to the office of Hon’ble Prime Minister of India by Speed Post A.D. on 16.11.2012.
16.Petitioner humbly submits that he has not filed any other writ petition in the subject matter before this Hon’ble Court or in any other Court’s of India
17.The petitioner has been made aware that this Hon’ble Court may impose cost if it forms opinion that the petitioner has not approach bonafidely.
18.PRAYER
It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to:
a) In exercise of powers U/Art. 32, 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India Your Lordships may be pleased to issue appropriate writ of mandamus (1) to take some decision on CITY Name Change Proposals which are pending since decade / years. (2) And may grant declaratory relief that in absence of a Law made by Parliament, it is not obligatory on part of the States to seek approval of Central Government for Name Change Proposal of CITIES in States. (3) And may give a declaratory relief fixing reasonable time limit for taking decision of such proposals coming from the States in order to maintain harmony in the Federal Structure of Nation.
b) Your Lordships may be please to grant or mould any other relief which Your Lordships may deem fit as per conscious of the Hon’ble Court.
AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS THE PETITIONER AS IN DUTY BOUND SHALL EVER PRAY.
FILED BY
(HARESH RAICHURA)
ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER
FILED ON:-