Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud, leading the bench that included Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, firmly rejected the petition.
NEW DELHI: On Monday (21st Oct), the Supreme Court of India dismissed a petition that sought to replace the term “Hindutva” with “Bharatiya Samvidhanatva,” translating to “Indian Constitutionalism.”
The plea was presented by Dr. SN Kundra, a resident of Vikaspuri in Delhi, who argued for the change based on concerns surrounding the term’s implications in the context of Indian identity and governance.
Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud, leading the bench that included Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, firmly rejected the petition.
CJI Chandrachud stated, “No sir, we will not entertain this,” indicating the court’s unwillingness to consider the request further.
This response came as Dr. Kundra sought to make additional submissions to support his case.
CJI Chandrachud was particularly critical of the nature of the plea, characterizing it as a “complete abuse of the process.”
The bench’s decision emphasized the complexities surrounding the discourse on Hindutva in India, a term that has been a focal point of political and social debate.
The term “Hindutva” has historically been associated with the ideology of Hindu nationalism, which advocates for the promotion of Hindu values in the political sphere.
The plea to replace ‘Hindutva’ with ‘Bharatiya Samvidhanatva’ was an effort to align national identity more closely with the principles of the Indian Constitution, which upholds secularism and equal rights for all citizens. Despite this argument, the court did not find merit in intervening in this matter.
In contrast, “Bharatiya Samvidhanatva” emphasizes the principles enshrined in the Indian Constitution, which advocates for secularism, democracy, and equality.
Dr. Kundra’s plea reflects a broader societal concern regarding the influence of religious nationalism on Indian identity and governance. However, the Supreme Court’s rejection suggests that the judiciary is cautious about engaging with petitions that may seek to redefine foundational concepts in Indian polity.
