Delhi HC dismisses PIL to replace 'Central government' with 'Union government' in official communications

New Delhi: The Delhi High Court on Tuesday dismissed a plea which had sought to replace the term 'Central government' with 'Union government' or 'Union of India' in all official orders, notifications, and correspondence.

The plea argued that the Constitution originally intended the use of the term 'Union government' and that its usage would foster a more unified relationship between the Union and the states, counteracting the perception of centralisation of power.

A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Mini Pushkarna, however, said that both the terms can be used interchangeably and the issue was not a case for a PIL.

"What is there in this PIL? It doesn’t matter how you address them. We have far more important matters. Dismissed," the court said.

The court further said the committee had only made a recommendation and, apart from being referred to as the Supreme Court, the top court was also called the "apex court".

The Centre had, in August, taken objection with the plea contending that the plea amounts to unnecessary litigation and should be dismissed.

A bench comprising then Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma (now elevated to SC) and Justice Sanjeev Narula had granted the Centre time to respond to the petition.

The petitioner, an 84-year-old individual named Atmaram Saraogi, through the PIL, urged the Ministry of Law and Justice to adopt the terms 'Union', 'Union government', or 'Union of India' instead of 'Central government' or 'Centre'.

However, the high court had expressed scepticism about the public interest aspect of the plea, noting that there appears to be no prohibition on using the term 'Central government'.

In response, senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, representing the petitioner, had said that the Constitution exclusively employs the term 'Union government' and never uses 'Central government'. He had said that the phrase 'Central government' is not legally recognised and that Article 1 of the Constitution refers to the 'Union' rather than 'Central'.

The petitioner's contention aimed to challenge the definition of 'Central government' as outlined in Section 3(8)(b) of the General Clauses Act, 1897, arguing that it is inconsistent with the constitutional framework of India as a 'Union of States'.

The petitioner believes that this terminology misrepresents the true nature of the Indian governance system, which is built on a Union of States rather than a centralised government structure.

The petitioner's plea ultimately sought a declaration that 'Central government' in legislative texts should be interpreted as 'Union government' or 'Union of India'. and contended that this correction is essential to maintain the integrity of the relationship between the Union government and the state governments, as enshrined in the Constitution.