The Delhi High Court recently made a significant ruling by dismissing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that sought to replace the term “Central Government” with “Union Government” in all Indian legislations, orders, notifications, rules, executive actions, and circulars. This decision was delivered by a division bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Mini Pushkarna.
The petitioner, 84-year-old Atmaram Saraogi, represented by Advocate Hemant Raj Phalpher, argued for a terminological shift in the official language used in Indian governance. The PIL contended that the term “Central Government” is an outdated concept from the British Raj era and does not align with India’s current system of governance. According to the petition,
“Under our Constitution, India is a ‘UNION OF STATES’, and there cannot be any conceptualization of a ‘Central Government’ as existed under the British Raj. However, this archaic phraseology continues to be employed wholly contrary to our system of governance.”
The petitioner emphasized that the Indian Constitution does not mention the terms “Central Government” or “Centre.” These terms, according to the petition, began appearing only in amendments made from 2012 onwards. The plea stated,
“Article 1 of the Constitution of India used the words ‘The Union and its Territory’ and states that ‘India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States’. Interestingly, the terms ‘Centre’ or ‘Central Government’ have consciously not been used in any of the 395 articles divided in 22 parts and/or in eight schedules of the Constitution of India.”
Saraogi’s petition further argued that the usage of “Union Government” would have a unifying effect on the relationship between the Union and the states, helping to dispel the misconception of power centralization in the Union Government. The plea elaborated,
“In other words, the word ‘Centre’ indicates a point in the middle of the circle giving a sense of a Federal Government, whereas ‘Union’ refers to the Whole Circle and denotes a sense of Unitary Government.”
Also read-Punjab High Court Revisits Policemen’s Dismissal, Highlights Misuse Of UAPA And PMLA (lawchakra.in)
The petition also invoked the views of India’s founding fathers, Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru and Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, to reinforce its argument. It quoted them to emphasize that the usage of ‘Union of States’ would signify and rightly portray that ‘the federation is Union because it is indestructible’.
Despite these arguments, the Delhi High Court dismissed the PIL. The bench, in its oral remarks, questioned the necessity of the PIL, stating,
“What is there in this PIL? I don’t understand….whether it is central government or Union government. It does not matter how you address them…We have far more important matters. Dismissed.”
This ruling upholds the current practice of using “Central Government” and “Union Government” interchangeably in Indian laws and official documents. The court’s decision reflects a preference for maintaining the status quo over the historical and constitutional arguments presented in the PIL.
