Supreme Court Dismisses Plea to Replace ‘Hindutva’ with ‘Indian Constitutionalism’
In a significant ruling on October 21, 2024, the Supreme Court of India dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) that sought to replace the term ‘Hindutva’ with ‘Bharatiya Samidhaanitva’ or ‘Indian constitutionalism.’ The bench, led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, characterized the plea as a "complete abuse of the process," firmly stating that it would not entertain such requests.
The petitioner, S N Kundra from Vikaspuri, Delhi, had argued for the change, but the court was quick to shut down the motion. "No sir, we will not entertain this," Chief Justice Chandrachud remarked, emphasizing the court’s stance on the matter. The bench, which also included Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, reiterated that the legal system should not be used for frivolous petitions.
This ruling comes at a time when discussions around the term ‘Hindutva’ are particularly sensitive in Indian society. The term, often associated with Hindu nationalism, has been a topic of intense debate and scrutiny. By rejecting the plea, the Supreme Court has maintained the status quo regarding the terminology that defines a significant aspect of India’s cultural and political landscape.
In a separate but related matter, the Supreme Court also stayed communications from the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) that urged states to transfer students from unrecognised madrassas to government schools. This decision followed a challenge from the Muslim organization Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind, which argued that such actions by the Uttar Pradesh and Tripura governments were unjust and needed to be halted.
The court’s decision to stay the NCPCR’s directive highlights ongoing tensions surrounding educational policies and minority rights in India. As the legal battles continue, the Supreme Court remains a pivotal arena for addressing these complex issues.
In summary, the Supreme Court’s dismissal of the plea to replace ‘Hindutva’ with ‘Indian constitutionalism’ underscores its commitment to maintaining judicial integrity and preventing the misuse of legal processes. Meanwhile, the stay on the NCPCR’s communications reflects the court’s role in safeguarding the rights of minority communities in the face of contentious policy decisions. As these developments unfold, they will undoubtedly continue to shape the discourse around identity, culture, and education in India.
