PIL in Delhi HC Seeking Replacement of ‘Centre’ with ‘Union Govt’ in Official Terminology

A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has been filed in the Delhi High Court seeking directions to replace the terms ‘Centre’ or ‘Central government’ with ‘Union government’ in all legislations, acts, and official communications.
But during the hearing, the Central government opposed the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by an 84-year-old social activist named Atmaram Saraogi.
Before a bench comprising Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Narula, the Central government, represented by advocate Kirtiman Singh, asserted that the plea is superfluous and lacks validity. Consequently, the government sought the dismissal of the petition.
However, the Court adjourned the matter to December, considering that a similar matter is currently pending before a Standing Committee of the Rajya Sabha.
The PIL argues that India, as per the Constitution, functions as a “Union of States.” As such, the conceptualization of a ‘Central Government,’ akin to the British Raj, is inappropriate.
Appearing for the petitioner, Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan also sought the annulment of the definition of Central government as articulated in the General Clauses Act as being ultra vires of the constitution.
The Senior Advocate contended, “Are we going to be casual about the phrases we use especially if the Union of India wants to clothe itself as if it is a different entity from the one it is? It is not the Central government. It is the Union of India.”
The bench indicated its inability to identify any public interest inherent in the petition and found no foundation for the petitioner’s assertion that the government should exclusively employ specific terms.
The petitioner Counsel emphasized that he cannot emphasize the point more than the Constitution itself, which abstains from employing the term. He argued that if the Constitution refrains from its use, then the entities established by the Constitution should do likewise.
Subsequently, the Court asked whether there exists any Constitutional provision prohibiting the use of the term ‘Central government.’ Sankaranarayanan pointed out that Article 1 of the Constitution employs the term ‘Union’ instead of ‘Central.’ He additionally noted the use of ‘Union Territories’ rather than ‘Central Territories.’