The Constitution prohibits the establishment of a theocratic state and ensures equal status of all religions without any preference or discrimination.

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 ‘Right to Know’ guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution;

(c) direct the Centre and State Governments to 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 following questions of law :

“1. Whether continuing the names of ancient historical cultural religious places, in the names of barbaric invaders is against the Sovereignty?

2. Whether Centre and States are obligated to restore the names of ancient historical cultural religious places in their original names to secure Right to Dignity guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution?

3. Whether the relief claimed for restoration of names of ancient historical cultural religious places, which were changed during foreign rule, relates to Unity and Integrity of the Nation, the laudable objective sought to be achieved in the Preamble of the Constitution of India?

4. Whether Right to profess, practice and propagate religion, is intimately connected with the names of religious places and therefore the changes made during foreign rule must be restored to enable the citizens to freely Profess, Practice and Propagate Religion guaranteed Article 25?

5. Whether the names of places prevalent during Ramayana and Mahabharata Period were arbitrarily and illegally changed during foreign rule, ought to be restored so as to protect the Right to Conserve the Ancient Culture, guaranteed under Article 29 of the Constitution of India?

6. Whether restoration of the names of the ancient historical cultural religious places, is connected with Right to Identity guaranteed under Article 21?

7. Whether Right to Know guaranteed under Article 19 includes the right to know Original Names of the ancient historical cultural religious places?”

5. We may notice that we have to bear in mind being the Court dealing with the matter under Article 32 of the Constitution, that the Court is tasked with the enforcement of fundamental rights. India, that is ‘Bharat’ in terms of the preamble, is a secular country. In His Holiness Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru v. State of Kerala and Another, (1973) 4 SCC 225, we notice that it was opined “India is a secular State in which there is no State religion” (See para 487). The secular and federal character of the Constitution has found to be among the “basic elements of the constitutional structure” (See para 582). Secularism has been a