"Hinduism a great religion; does not allow bigotry": Supreme Court rejects Ashwini Upadhyay PIL to rename places named after "invaders"

The Supreme Court on Monday rejected a public interest litigation (PIL) petition filed by BJP leader and advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay seeking renaming of historical places and cities which he claimed are currently named after "invaders" [Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay vs Union of India and ors]. .A bench of Justices KM Joseph and BV Nagarathna came down upon the petitioner for what it considered to be a petition which went against secular principles envisaged in the Constitution."We are secular and supposed to protect the Constitution. You are concerned about the past, and dig it up to place its burden on present generation. Each thing you do in this manner will create more disharmony," the bench said..The Court said that the petitioner is reexamining the past selectively and also took objection to terming an entire community as barbaric."You are relooking at the past selectively. India is today a secular country. Your fingers being pointed at a particular community, termed barbaric. Do you want to keep the country under boil," Justice Joseph remarked.Pertinently, the bench remarked that Hinduism is a great religion and it does not allow bigotry."Perhaps Hinduism is greatest religion in terms of metaphysics. Please do not belittle it. The world looks to us always. Even today. I can say, I am a Christian but am equally fond of Hinduism and have tried to study it. Try and understand its greatness. Do not use it for a particular purpose," Justice Joseph said."That is why it a way of life, does not allow bigotry," Justice Nagarathna weighed in."In fact, in Kerala where I come from, Hindus have donated land to churches," Justice Joseph said.Justice Nagarathna said that the country is facing so many other problems which should be first solved.She also highlighted the divide and rule policy followed by the British to ensure that Indians kept fighting amongst themselves. "Our country has so many problems to attend to ... Hinduism is a way of life, because of that India has assimilated everybody. Because of that we are able to live together. Divide and rule policy of British brought about schism in our society ... Let us not bring that back. Do not drag a religion into this," Justice Nagarathna said. The Court also said that it has been settled by the Supreme Court in past judgments that India is a secular country and a nation cannot remain a prisoner of its past."We may notice that we have to bear in mind being 3 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. This has been upheld by 9 judges. The present and future of a country cannot remain a prisoner of the past. The governance of Bharat must conform to Rule of law, secularism, constitutionalism of which Article 14 stands out as the guarantee of both equality and fairness in the State’s action," the bench said. .Hinduism a way of life, does not allow bigotrySupreme Court.The filed by Upadhyay through advocate Ashwani Kumar Dubey sought directions to the Home Ministry to form a Renaming Commission to find out the historical names of places renamed by 'barbaric foreign invaders', so as to maintain sovereignity and secure other fundamental rights.It also sought that the Central and State governments be directed to update their websites and records to reflect, which amount to around a 1000 in number.Alternatively, it was sought that the Archaeological Survey of India be directed to prepare a list of such names under the citizens' right to know under Article 19 of the Constitution."We are 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 ... successive governments have not taken steps to correct the barbaric act of invaders and the injury is continuing," the plea stated..The Court, however, made it clear today that while India has been invaded many times over, the same cannot be wiped away from history by renaming places."Can we rewrite history and say they did not invade?" Justice Joseph asked."That is a fact of history can you wish it away. Yes we have been ruled by foreign invaders. We have been invaded several times and history has taken its part. What are you trying to achieve? Have we not heard other problems in our country," Justice Nagarathan asked.Upadhyay said that Constitutional protections cannot be given to invaders."Hindus wiped out from Afghanistan, a minority in nine States. My understanding is this Constitution is not for foreign barbaric invaders," Upadhyay stated.The bench said that the principle of fraternity should trump everything. "The history of any nation cannot haunt the present and future generations of a nation to the point that succeeding generations become prisoners of the past. The golden principle of fraternity which again is enshrined in the preamble is of the greatest importance and rightfully finds its place in the preamble as a constant reminder to all stakeholders that maintenance of harmony between 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 well the State have to 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, the bench added.Upadhyay sought to withdraw his petition but the bench disallowed the same and proceeded to dismiss it." ... 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. The writ petition is dismissed.".[Read live-coverage of the hearing below].[Read judgment]