Delhi High Court Seeks Centre’s Response On PIL Objecting To Synonymous Usage Of 'Dharma' And 'Religion' In Govt Records

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday sought response of the Union Government on a PIL to distinguish between “Dharma” and “Religion” and seeking inclusion of a chapter on the subject in the curriculum of primary and secondary schools to “educate the masses and control the religion-based hatred and hate speeches.”

A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela granted time to ASG Chetan Sharma appearing for the Union Government for filing response and listed the matter for hearing on January 16, 2024.

The PIL has been moved by BJP leader and Advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay. 

The plea also seeks direction on the Union and Delhi Governments to use proper meaning of religion, which according to Upadhyay is “Panth or Sampradaya” and not “Dharma” as a synonym, in government documents like birth certificate, Aadhar card, driving license, bank account, birth and death certificates etc.

“Petitioner respectfully submits that the Dharma and Religion has totally different meaning but Centre and State Government Officials and Employees not only use the term Dharma as synonym of Religion in the documents like Birth Certificate, AADHAAR Card, School Certificate, Ration Card, Driving Licence, Domicile Certificate, Death Certificate and Bank Account etc but also in their verbal and written communication,” the plea states.

It is Upadhyay’s case that Dharma is not Religion. He submits that Dharma is an “ordering principle” which is independent of one’s faith or methods of worship or what is understood by term ‘religion’, thus providing total freedom in the ethical norms in an “eternal journey from being to becoming.”

“Each institution of the society, each individual, almost intuitively knew where to draw the line, where to define the limit. Tolerance is, therefore, integral to ‘Dharma’, plurality is inherent in it. This tolerance and plurality do not find space in the concept of religion,” the plea reads.

It adds: “Different saintly persons born in different parts of India, in different times, speaking different languages guided people to lead Dharmic life in their own ways. Being true saints, they merely described Dharma to the best of their ability and people grasped according to their own mental capacity. No one ever forced anything on anyone. The silly concept of ‘conversion’ came to India from outside as Christians and Muslims arrived.”

Furthermore, Upadhyay’s plea contends that the “secular Western democracies” evolved so that people could think and express freely, therefore, they got rid of “stifling clergy dictatorship.”

“The Islamic societies, on the other hand, continue to remain stifled by insane dictates of the clergy class for good reasons. The mullah has become even more powerful than Mohammad or Allah and turned the “religion of peace” into a cult of violence and terrorism. This is what happens when insane amount of “workless” petrodollars fall in unworthy hands of cocky Wahhabi/Deobandi mullahs devoid of slightest sense of morality,” the plea adds.

Title: ASHWINI KUMAR UPADHYAY v. UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS