ASHWINI KUMAR UPADHYAY versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: [2023] 3 S.C.R. 184 · Decided: 27-02-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.M. JOSEPH · Disposal: Dismissed
cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
184
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 3 S.C.R.
   [2023] 3 S.C.R. 184
184
ASHWINI KUMAR UPADHYAY
v.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
(Writ Petition (Civil) No.190 of 2023)
 FEBRUARY 27, 2023
[K. M. JOSEPH AND B. V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.]
Constitution of India –  Article 32, 14 – Petition filed seeking
directions – to the Home Ministry to constitute a Renaming
Commission to find out original names of ancient historical cultural
religious places, named after barbaric foreign invaders; to the ASI
to research and publish their initial names; to the Centre and State
Governments to update their websites and records – Held:
Secularism has been accepted as a facet of the basic structure of
the Constitution – Bharat is a secular nation committed to securing
fundamental rights to all sections as contemplated in the Constitution
– 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 – Reliefs sought not
granted by this Court acting as the guardian of fundamental rights
of all u/Article 32.
Dismissing the writ petition, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Secularism has been accepted as a facet of the
basic structure of the Constitution. The present and future of a
country cannot remain a prisoner of the past. 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. The founding fathers
contemplated India to be a republic which is not merely to be
conflated to a body polity having an elected President which is
the conventional understanding. But it also involves ensuring
rights to all sections of people based on it being a democracy. It
is important that the country must move forward. For achieving
the sublime goals which are enshrined in Part IV – that is the
Directive Principles, but bearing in mind the fundamental rights
also guaranteed in Part III of the Constitution, which have been
described as the two wheels of the chariot of the State, both of
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
185
which are indispensable, for the smooth progress of the nation,
actions must be taken which bond all sections of the society
together. [Paras  5, 9 and 10][188-B; 193-A-C]
1.2 The history of any nation cannot haunt the future
generations of a nation to the point that succeeding generations
become prisoners of the past. 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. 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. The reliefs which
have been sought for should not be granted by this Court acting
as the guardian of fundamental rights of all under Article 32 of
the Constitution of India and bearing in mind the values which a
Court must keep uppermost in its mind - the preamble gives
clear light in this direction. [Paras 11, 12][193-D-F]
His Holiness Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru v.
State of Kerala and Another (1973) 4 SCC 225 : [1973]
0 Suppl. SCR 1; S.R. Bommai and Others v. Union of
India and Others (1994) 3 SCC 1 : [1994] 2 SCR 644
– followed.
State of Karnataka v. Praveen Bhai Thogadia (Dr.)
(2004) 4 SCC 684 : [2004] 3 SCR 652; M.P.
Gopalakrishnan Nair v. State of Kerala (2005) 11 SCC
45 : [2005] 3 SCR 712 – relied on.
Case Law Reference
[1973] Suppl. SCR 1
followed
Para 5
[1994] 2 SCR 644
followed
Para 5
[2004] 3 SCR 652
relied on
Para 6
[2005] 3 SCR 712
relied on
Para 7
ASHWINI KUMAR UPADHYAY v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
186
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 3 S.C.R.
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (Civil) No.190
of 2023.
(Under Article 32 of The Constitution of India)
Ashwani Kumar Dubey, Advs. for the Petitioner.
Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, Petitioner-in-person
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
K. M. JOSEPH, J.
1. The reliefs sought for by the petitioner are as follows:
“a) direct the Home Ministry to constitute a “Renaming
Commission” to find out original
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.