Bharat, Not India? Amid Buzz of ‘Name Change’, Opposition’s Legal Eagles Say ‘Easier Said than Done’newsbhunt

Amid the furore over the speculated “change of the country’s name” from India to Bharat, legal experts say this is easier said than done. Government sources have pointed to Article 1 of the Indian constitution to say that Bharat already exists in the statute. Article 1(1) of the Indian constitution says, “India that is Bharat will be a union of states.” Government functionaries say that this paves the way for instances like the President of India sending out G20 dinner invites as “President of Bharat”.

Union minister Dharmendra Pradhan justified this departure from precedent by saying that the President has merely prioritised Bharat among the two names that the Constitution mentions.

“This should have happened earlier. This gives great satisfaction to the mind. ‘Bharat’ is our introduction. We are proud of it. The President has given priority to ‘Bharat’. This is the biggest statement to come out of the colonial mindset,” Pradhan said.

One argument from government functionaries is that the President’s invitation merely reflects the thinking of using the name Bharat more in government parlance. Since the Constitution already has the name in Article 1, such usage would not need constitutional amendments.

‘INDIA’ effect?

The opposition, however, has alleged that the government is rattled by the INDIA bloc and hence the plan to change the name of the country to Bharat and drop India altogether. Jairam Ramesh, Manoj K Jha, and Kanimozhi Karunanidhi all spoke to this effect.

But legal eagles who also don the hat of being politicians from the opposition spectrum pointed out that this is easier said than done.

Constitutional amendment, ratification by states

PDT Achary, former Lok Sabha secretary general, explained that if the government proposes to drop the word “India”, then a constitutional amendment would be needed. “The Preamble of the Constitution, the title, everything calls the country India,” he said.

“We, the people of India, having solemnly resolved to constitute the Union of India into a sovereign socialist secular democratic republic…do hereby adopt, enact and give to ourselves this Constitution,” the preamble states.

Achary said that if the government proposes to bring about a name change then a new constitutional amendment bill will be needed. “The bill will have to be passed by a two-thirds majority in the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha and also get ratified by states,” he said.

Lawyer-turned-politician Majid Memon said that since a number of states now have non-BJP governments, ratification would be a challenge. “The country had three names at the time of Independence: Bharat, Hindustan, and India. After careful deliberations, the constituent assembly formalised Article 1 and said ‘India that is Bharat’. Changing the provision won’t be easy,” he said.

P Wilson, DMK’s Rajya Sabha member, told News18, “If they wish to drop the word ‘India’ altogether, then it would entail amendments to all the laws where the word India is present. Like IPC/CRPC/Evidence Act they have renamed as Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, and the Bharatiya Sakshya Bill, this will be a huge legislative exercise, given the number of laws and sections involved.”

Wilson also said that the courts may not want to adjudicate on such an issue if it comes to that. “The courts might opine that this is an administrative issue and may not intervene,” he said adding that what the government proposes formally will have to be studied first.