1. CJI DY Chandrachud, with Justices Pardiwala and Misra, dismissed a plea to replace ‘Hindutva.’
2. The petition sought to substitute ‘Hindutva’ with ‘Bharatiya Samvidhanatva,’ reflecting constitutional values.
3. Filed by Dr. SN Kundra, the plea was rejected as an abuse of legal process.
New Delhi, Oct 21: Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud, along with Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, on Monday, firmly dismissed a petition seeking to replace the term ‘Hindutva’ with ‘Bharatiya Samvidhanatva’ (Indian Constitution).
The petition, filed by Dr. SN Kundra, aimed to replace the word ‘Hindutva’ in public and political discourse with a term that he argued was more inclusive and reflective of India’s constitutional values.
The plea was brought before the Supreme Court, with Dr. Kundra presenting his case in person.
He argued that the term ‘Hindutva,’ often used in political and religious contexts, should be replaced by ‘Bharatiya Samvidhanatva’ to ensure that Indian society remains constitutionally secular and inclusive.
Also Read: Manipur: Suspected Militants Set Fire to Village Leader’s Farmhouses in Jiribam District
According to him, this change was necessary to uphold the core principles of the Indian Constitution and to prevent any potential misuse of the term ‘Hindutva’ in dividing communities.
However, the Supreme Court was quick to dismiss the petition, with CJI Chandrachud calling it “a complete abuse of the process.”
As Dr. Kundra began his arguments, the Chief Justice interrupted him, stating, “No sir, we will not entertain this.” The court did not entertain further debate on the matter and swiftly rejected the plea.
The Chief Justice’s response underscored the court’s firm stance on such petitions, signaling that the judiciary is unwilling to entertain cases that attempt to challenge established terms with deep cultural and historical significance, especially when they are perceived to have little legal or constitutional merit.
The swift rejection of the petition also reflected the court’s prioritization of more pressing legal matters over what it deemed unnecessary or frivolous challenges to linguistic or cultural terms.
