'President Of India' Not 'Bharat', Says Former Bombay HC Judge SC Dharmadhikari; Quotes Article 52

Article 1 of the Constitution states India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States. In other words, the Constitution recognises both 'India' and 'Bharat' as official names for the country. However, retired justice of the Bombay High Court, SC Dharmadhikari, draws attention to Article 52, which specifically says: There shall be a President of India. So, the G20 dinner invitation sent by President Droupadi Murmu needs to refer to the hostess as The President of India and not as The President of Bharat. The distinction is very subtle, but it's very important, said Justice (retd) Dharmadhikari. He explained the distinction thus: Article 1 talks about the name and territory of the country, whereas Article 52 talks about the title of the office of the President.

President may not have been briefed properly on the issue

Trying to put the controversy in context, Justice Dharmadhikari emphasised that the President may not have been briefed properly on the issue. Noted criminal lawyer and former MP Majeed Memom said that from time immemorial, India is known as India, Bharat and Hindustan. But no ruler or political party has dared to change the name of the country. It is not as simple as changing the names of railway stations, airports or streets. A constitutional amendment is needed to rename the country. Parliament is meeting next week. Let it be decided through legislation, Memon added.

Recently, the Centre called for a fiveday special session of Parliament but without disclosing the agenda. At the time, it was surmised that the ruling party was trying to push the One Nation, One Election norm. Justice (retd) Dharmadhikari stressed that such a controversy will dent our image worldwide. “It will create an impression that we can be easily divided on issues of caste, religion and language.”

However, senior counsel and constitutional expert Srihari Aney said that Article 1 of the Constitution entitles people to use either term -- India or Bharat. “There is nothing wrong with it. Even out national anthem says ‘Bharat Bhagya Vidhata’ If people want, they can generate a controversy out of anything,” said Aney.

Sterile debate that doesn't mean much

As regards Article 52, which Justice (retd) Dharmadhikari has focussed on, Aney said, “For its interpretation you have to again go back to Article 1, which says – ‘India, that is Bharat’.” Aney also said there is no confusion between India/Bharat and the opposition formulation I.N.D.I.A. It is a sterile debate which doesn't mean much. It is established in law that the terms India and Bharat are interchangeable, Aney emphasised.

He pointed out that some other countries have names in their local language as well. “Like Switzerland’s official Latin name is Confoederatio Helvetica (CH). So, the debate around India and Bharat is futile,” he added.