REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.190 OF 2023
ASHWINI KUMAR UPADHYAY … PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. … RESPONDENT(S)
JUDGMENT
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
names of ‘ancient historical cultural
religious places’, named after barbaric
foreign invaders in order to maintain
Sovereignty and to secure ‘Right to Dignity,
Right to Religion and Right to Culture’
guaranteed under Articles 21, 25 and 29 of
the Constitution;
b) alternatively, direct the Archaeological
Survey of India to research and publish the
initial names of ancient historical cultural
religious places, which were renamed by
barbaric foreign invaders, in order to secure
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
‘Right to Know’ guaranteed under Article 19
Nidhi Ahuja
Date: 2023.03.02
17:06:55 IST
of the Constitution;
Reason:
c) direct the Centre and State Governments to
1
update their websites and records and mention
the original names of ancient historical
cultural religious places, named after the
barbaric foreign invaders.”
2. We have heard Shri Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay,
petitioner appearing in-person.
3. In brief, the case of the petitioner appears to be
as follows:
The country is celebrating the 75th Anniversary of
Independence but there are many ancient, historical,
cultural, religious places in the name of ‘brutal
foreign invaders’, their servants and family members.
He has given various examples. He invokes the right to
dignity as flowing from Article 21 of the Constitution
of India. He further submits that there is his
fundamental right to culture which is protected in
Articles 19 and 29. Again, he refers to Article 25 as
the source of his right to religion and in regard to
his fundamental right to know, he leans on Article
19(1)(a). He also has brought up the concept of
‘sovereignty’ being compromised by the continuous use
of the names of the ‘brutal invaders’.
4. The petitioner, in fact, draws our attention to the
2
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. We must constantly remind
ourselves that 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.
12. We are, therefore, of the view that 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 us clear
light in this direction.
13. The writ petition is dismissed.
…………………………………………J.
[K.M. JOSEPH]
…………………………………………J.
[B.V. NAGARATHNA]
NEW DELHI;
DATED: FEBRUARY 27, 2023
13
