‘Bharat’ a descriptive term, Constitution does not recognise it as official name of the country: PDT Achary| EXCLUSIVE

A dinner invitation issued on behalf of President Droupadi Murmu to world leaders arriving for the G20 Summit in New Delhi this week has triggered an unexpected controversy. The invitation text referring to Murmu as the “President of Bharat” instead of “President of India”, as has been the practice, has triggered speculation that the Prime Minister Narendra Modi-led government at the Centre may be considering a proposal to change the country’s name officially to Bharat, dropping the word ‘India’ from the Constitution altogether.

The speculation gained ground on Tuesday as some media reports suggested that the Centre may bring a resolution to this effect during the five-day special session of the Parliament to be convened from September 18-22. The government, on its part, has dismissed the speculation around the change of name as pure rumours, but condemned Opposition parties for objecting to the use of the Bharat nomenclature.

Also Read: Before President’s G20 dinner invite, ‘Bharat’ was used on PM Modi’s BRICS notification

Article 1 of the Constitution: How is it relevant to the debate?

Article 1 of the Constitution sets the tone for the entire constitutional framework. It is a crucial statement that specifies the federal structure of the nation, what the nation will be called, and what will comprise the sovereign territory of the nation.

“India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States,” the text of Article 1 states. Any change in the name of the country will require a change in the wording of Article 1 of the Constitution.

Constitutional experts, however, say that If and when the Centre brings a resolution to change the name of the country, the process will require not one, but several amendments to the Constitution. “It will require a herculean effort,” constitutional expert and former Lok Sabha Secretary General PDT Achary told Financial Express Digital.

“First of all, Article 1 of the Constitution, which mentions the name of the country (India, that is Bharat) will have to be changed. It is about the federal structure of India where the name of the country is also given.”

Also Read: ‘President of Bharat’: G20 dinner invite sparks buzz, Congress sees red

Can ‘India’ be changed to ‘Bharat’ through a resolution in Parliament?

Achary says that there is no procedure under which a change can be made to the Constitution through a resolution in the House. “There is talk of the government bringing a resolution in the House. There is no procedure under which a resolution can be brought and a change can be made in the Constitution. The constitutional rules of procedure do not recognise any such procedure,” he says.

‘India that is Bharat’

Experts say that the present government may have been advised to use the names alternatively or interchangeably, implying that they can use ‘Bharat’ instead of ‘India’ without any change. However, that understanding may be incorrect.

“The word ‘Bharat’ is a descriptive term. The name of the country is India. A country can have only one official name. Having several official names will only create confusion not only within the country but also outside. The Constitution does not recognise ‘Bharat’ as the official name of the country,” says Achary.

On a question on several ministers citing the Constitution, which mentions “India, that is Bharat”, to say that either of the two names can be used to officially refer to the country, Achary says that the argument is flawed.

“The word Bharat has not been used in any Article of the Constitution. It is only India. India is the official name of the country.. the Republic of India… but since Hindi is constitutionally the official language of the Union, there naturally has to be a term in Hindi. Things have to be translated into Hindi. So, we say ‘Bharat ke Rashtrapati’. But you will not find the term ‘Rashtrapati’ anywhere in the Constitution. It only mentions the term President.”

Also Read: What suddenly happened that India needs to be called only Bharat, asks Mamata Banerjee

Achary points out that even the Hindi version of the Constitution, authenticated by the constituent Assembly, Article 1 is worded as “Bharat arthaat India”. “India is the official name here as well. That makes it clear that India is the official name of the country.”

A herculean effort

Changing the official name from India to anything else will require the Constitution to be amended. “Article 1 will have to be amended. Then, wherever India is used that will have to go in that case. Then there will be inflections. The Indian Police Service for instance. What do you call it then? You can’t call it Bharat Police Seva. It will have to be Bharatiya,” says Achary, adding that there may also be a requirement to add a clause to Article 1 of the Constitution to say that India will hereafter be known as Bharat.

Are governments empowered to change the country’s name?

Article 368 of the Constitution allows for the Constitution to be amended by Parliament by a special majority. Any amendment to Article 1 of the Constitution will require so to be done through a special majority, with at least two-thirds of the members present and voting at the time backing the amendment.

Parliament’s powers to amend the Constitution: What Supreme Court said

In a landmark judgment in 1973 in the Kesavananda Bharati case, the Supreme Court evolved the doctrine for the basic structure of the Constitution and laid down that the Parliament can amend any part of the Constitution but cannot fiddle with its basic structure – a check on the executive and the legislative powers of the government.

The Supreme Court in its verdict established firmly that Parliament does not enjoy unfettered powers to amend the Constitution and that there are certain basic features that are beyond the scope of amendment. It clarified that Parliament is authorised to amend any part of the Constitution, including the fundamental rights, but at the same time such amendments cannot remain immune from the power of the constitutional courts to exercise its power of judicial review to scrutinise all amendments and not just those affecting fundamental rights.

India or Bharat: What Supreme Court said in 2016

In 2016, a Supreme Court bench of then Chief Justice of India TS Thakur and Justice UU Lalit junked a PIL demanding that the Bharat nomenclature be used for all purposes instead of India. “Bharat of India… If you want to call it Bharat, go right ahead. Someone wants to call it India, let him call it India. There is no change in circumstances to consider any change in Article 1 of the Constitution of India,” the court had said.