Experts differ on whether changing country's name to 'Bharat' requires constitutional amendment

Amid speculations on whether the central government will bring in a resolution in the Special Session of Parliament to rename India as Bharat, questions have been raised on whether the move would require a Constitutional amendment with two-third majority, or whether such a change would touch upon the basic structure doctrine. Experts and political analysts have differing opinions on the matter. 

Article 1 of the Constitution of India says, “India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States.” And so, the move might not require a Constitutional amendment, says Senior Supreme Court advocate and Congress Rajya Sabha MP Vivek Tankha.

“The Constitution specifies both names, but nationally, India is a popular synonym for how we know our country as. As per diplomatic norms, however, the recognised address was India. This is certainly a departure,” he said. 

Tankha added that the current BJP-led dispensation is invested in doing away with all of post-colonial India edicts. “Whether it is the new Parliament building, the new laws or the renaming as Bharat – they seem to have an allergy for everything that India has stood for. These changes are superficial; changes don’t make a country, jobs, education and health benefits do,” he added. 

Former Lok Sabha secretary general P D T Achary differs. He says that changing the name will require a Constitutional amendment. “Bharat is a descriptive term, and Bharat and India can not be used interchangeably. Countries have one name; in the United Nations, we are known as the Republic of India,” Achary said. 

He added that the Hindi version of the Constitution, too, says that ‘Bharat, arthat India’. “India is our official name, and changing that will require a Constitutional amendment, requiring two-third majority votes from each House of Parliament,” Achary said. He added that the changing of names does not touch upon the basic structure doctrine. 

While the demand to change the name of India to Bharat has not been prominent, a Delhi businessman in 2020 filed a petition seeking India be called Bharat, which was dismissed by the Supreme Court. The apex court had rejected a similar petition in 2016 too.

Congress Lok Sabha MP Shashi Tharoor, who has served as a former Under Secretary General of the United Nations, said on X that while there is no constitutional objection to calling India ‘Bharat’, he hoped that the Indian government will not be “foolish” as to completely dispense with the name ‘India’. He added that Bharat and India are our country’s two official names. 

India, he said, has “incalculable brand value” built over centuries. “We should continue to use both words rather than relinquish our claim to a name redolent of history, a name that is recognised around the world,” the senior Congress leader.