ASHWINI KUMAR UPADHYAY versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

ASHWINI KUMAR UPADHYAY versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

The reliefs seeking constitution of a Renaming Commission, directions to the ASI to publish original names, and orders to Centre and States to change records are not granted under Article 32; the Court emphasised that governance must conform to rule of law, secularism and constitutionalism (including Article 14) and that history should not make the nation or its future generations prisoners of the past.

Parties
Petitioner: Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay; Respondent: Union of India & Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
27 February 2023
Procedural Posture
Writ Petition (civil) No.190 of 2023 Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India / Judgment Delivered
Outcome
Writ petition dismissed
Legal Topics
Article 32, Article 14, Article 21, Article 25, Article 19, Article 29, Preamble, Renaming of Public Places
Constitutional Law Fundamental Rights Secularism Religious Freedom Article 32 Article 14 Article 21 Article 25 +4 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay

Petitioner

Union of India & Ors.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Writ Petition (civil) No.190 of 2023 Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India / Judgment Delivered

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether continuing the names of ancient historical cultural religious places, in the names of barbaric invaders is against the Sovereignty?
  2. 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. 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?

Ratio Decidendi

The reliefs seeking constitution of a Renaming Commission, directions to the ASI to publish original names, and orders to Centre and States to change records are not granted under Article 32; the Court emphasised that governance must conform to rule of law, secularism and constitutionalism (including Article 14) and that history should not make the nation or its future generations prisoners of the past.

Court Disposition

Writ petition dismissed

Orders

  • Writ petition dismissed.