Delhi High Court: In a case wherein a Public Interest Litigation (‘PIL’) was filed seeking to issue directions to Union of India to use the expression “Union Government” instead of “Central Government” or “Centre” and also to declare Section 3(8)(b) of the General Clauses Act, 1897 as ultra vires the Constitution, the Division Bench of Manmohan, ACJ.*, and Mini Pushkarna, J.*, dismissed the PIL and opined that both the expressions were vastly used in various statutes and in the Constitution and connote the Government of the country in interchangeable expressions, therefore, this Court would not go beyond its domain and enter the arena of legislation.
The petitioner contended that usage of the word “Centre” signified that the “Central Government” was the centre of authority and gave wrong impression that State Governments were subservient or subordinate to the Union Government. It was further submitted that the term “Union” depicted the constitutional theme which signified the Government of India as a Union of States and not superior Central Authority which had power over and above the States. It was also submitted that Articles 1, 76, 79, 246, 300 and Schedule VII of the Constitution used the term “Union” and petitioner also referred to the 12th Report Parliamentary Standing Committee where the founding fathers of Constitution treated the three wings, which were, the Union Executive, the Union Legislature, and the Union Judiciary, as constituents of the Union.
The Court noted that though the expressions “Union” and “Union of India” were used extensively in the Constitution, however, the expressions “Government of India” as well as “Central Government” were also used largely in the Constitution at various places. The Court noted that the expression “Central Government” was used in Articles 243-ZH, 243-ZR, 279-A and 342-A of the Constitution and the expression “Government of India” was used in Articles 8, 12, 58, 66, 73, 77, 102, 110, 112, 131, 138 , 148 , 191, 243-ZE, 256, 257, 258, 260, 266, 268, 269, 269-A, 270, 273, 275, 283, 284, 287, 292, 293, 294, 295, 296, 299, 300, 312-A, 316, 319, 320, 323-A, 361 and 371-A of the Constitution.
The Court opined that various expressions were used in the Constitution to indicate the Government of the Country such as the Union of India, the Central Government, or the Government of India. The Court further referred to Article 300 of the Constitution which provided that “Government of India” might sue or be sued by the name “Union of India”, which clearly demonstrated that the “Government of India” was referred to as the “Union of India”. Further reference was made to Article 73 of the Constitution which made it evident that the expression “Union” included the “Government of India” as Article 73 of the Constitution stipulated that the executive power of the “Union” shall extend to the exercise of such rights, authority, and jurisdiction as were exercisable by the Government of India. The Court also referred to Article 342-A of the Constitution where the expression “Central Government” was used to refer to the Government at the Centre, which was essentially the “Government of India” or the “Union of India”. The Court thus opined that there was no bar to use the expression “Central Government”, “Government of India” and “Union of India” interchangeably.
The Court opined that petitioner’s contention that the expression “Central Government” gave the wrong impression that State Governments were subordinate to the Union Government, was totally unacceptable as federalism which was the basic structure of the Constitution could not be diluted or violated by usage of the expression “Central Government”.
The Court further noted that the expression “Central Government” defined under Section 3(8) of the General Clauses Act, 1897 made the legislature’s intent very clear that the expression “Central Government” included the expression “Government of India”, which included the “Union of India”.
The Court dismissed the PIL and opined that the expression “Central Government”, “Union of India” as well as “Government of India” had been vastly used in various statutes and in the Constitution and connote the Government of the country in interchangeable expressions, therefore this Court would not go beyond its domain and enter the arena of legislation.
[Atmaram Saraogi v. Union of India, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 8336, decided on 19-12-2023]
*Judgment authored by: Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Mini Pushkarna
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: D.N. Goburdan, Senior Advocate; Hemant Raj Phalpher and Shivam Pundhir, Advocates
For the Respondent: Kirtiman Singh, CGSC; Waize Ali Noor and Shreya V. Mehra, Advocates
Buy Constitution of India HERE
