'A Country Can't Remain Prisoner Of Past' : Supreme Court Dismisses Plea To Rename Cities Named After Muslim Rulers; Stresses On India's Secular Character
"A country cannot remain a prisoner of the past", observed the Supreme Court while dismissing a PIL seeking to rename historical cities which have been named after "foreign invaders"."The history of any nation cannot haunt the present and future generations to the point that succeeding generations become prisoners of the past", a bench comprising Justices KM Joseph and BV Nagarathna stated...
"A country cannot remain a prisoner of the past", observed the Supreme Court while dismissing a PIL seeking to rename historical cities which have been named after "foreign invaders".
"The history of any nation cannot haunt the present and future generations to the point that succeeding generations become prisoners of the past", a bench comprising Justices KM Joseph and BV Nagarathna stated while affirming the secular nature of the country. "India, that is Bharat, is a secular country", the bench observed in the beginning of the order.
Advocate and BJP leader Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, the petitioner appearing as party-in-person, contended that many cities mentioned in scriptures are now named after Muslim rulers who invaded India.
During the hearing, the bench expressed a concern that the petitioner was pointing fingers at one particular community.
"You want to keep this as a live issue and keep the country on a boil? Fingers are pointed at a particular community. You run down a particular section of society. India is a secular state, this is a secular forum", Justice Joseph told Upadhyay, who was appearing as a party-in-person.
In the order, the bench highlighted the concept of “fraternity” and how bonding between different sections of the society would lead to true harmony and a sense of nationhood.
“The golden principle of fraternity which in 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 the maintenance of harmony among different sections alone will lead to a true notion of nationhood, bonding sections together for the greater good of the nation and find fraternity. We are, therefore, of the view that the reliefs which have been sought for should not be granted by the Court acting as the guardian of Fundamental Rights under Article 32 bearing in mind the values which a court must keep uppermost in mind as the Preamble gives us a clear light in this direction.”
The Court also emphasised how Article 14 guarantees fairness when it comes to State’s action.
“We are of the view that questions of law do not arise. A country cannot remain a prisoner of the past. India is wedded to rule of law, secularism, constitutionalism of which Article 14 stands out as the grand guarantee of both equality and fairness in State action. The founding fathers contemplated India to be a Republic which is not merely confined to having an elected President which is the conventional understanding but also involves all sections of people; it is a democracy. It is important that the country must move forward. It is indispensable for achieving the triple goals enshrined in the chapter of in DPSP bearing in mind the Fundamental Rights also…..Actions must be taken which infuse all sections of the society together.”
During the hearing, both the judges made an array of observations regarding how the petition is against secularism and that there are more pressing problems in the country to deal with.
“It's a matter of restoration of religious places”, Upadhyay argued while taking the Court through his petition which sought to remove the names of 'barbaric invaders' based on whom ancient, religious and historic places are named.
“Religious worship has got nothing to do with the roads”, Justice Joseph almost instantaneously pointed out while adding that Emperor Akbar actually aimed to create harmony between the different communities.
Justice BV Nagarathna then pointed out that historical facts cannot be wished away.
“It's a historical fact. Can you wish away invasions from history? We have been invaded several times. Have we not got other problems in our country rather than wishing away for things which happened before?”
“Should names of places and roads be based on persons who looted the country?”, Upadhyay asked.
"Hinduism is a way of life, because of that India has assimilated everybody. Because of that we are able to live together. Divide and rule policy of British brought about schism in our society. Let us not being that back", Justice Nagarathna told the petitioner. Sensing the bench was not inclined to entertain the matter, Upadhyay on multiple times sought permission to withdraw the petition. He also sought adjournment. However, the bench said that it will not permit withdrawal of the matter and proceeded to dictate the order.
"Let us not break society with such kinds of petitions, please have the country in mind, not any religion", Justice Nagarathna told the petitioner while adding that "there is no bigotry in Hinduism".
After dictating the order, the Bench told the petitoner that it moderated certain strong observations it wanted to make about the petition.
Justice Joseph said that Hinduism has a great tradition and it should not be belittled.
"Hinduism is the greatest religion in terms of metaphysics. The heights which Hinduism have in Upanishads, Vedas, Bhagavid Gita are unequal in any system. We should be proud of that. Please don't belittle it. We have to understand our own greatness. Our greatness should lead us to be magnanimous. I am a Christian. But I am equally fond of Hinduism. I am trying to study it. You read the works of Dr S Radhakrishan on Hindu philosophy", Justice Joseph said.
"Hinduism is a way of life. There is no bigotry in Hinduism", Justice Nagarathna reiterated.
Case Title: ASHWINI KUMAR UPADHYAY Vs Union of India [WP(C) 190/2023]
Citation : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 156
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, Petitioner-in-person Mr. Ashwani Kumar Dubey, AOR
Secularism - India, that is ‘Bharat’ in terms of the preamble, is a secular country- 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 (Para 8,9)
Plea to rename places named after Muslim rulers- Supreme Court dismisses- The present and future of a country cannot remain a prisoner of the past- The history of any nation cannot haunt the future generations of a nation to the point that succeeding generations become prisoners of the past (Para 9, 11)
Fraternity - 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. We must constantly remind ourselves that 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 (Para 11)