Central government opposes PIL in Delhi High Court to replace 'Central government' with ‘Union Government’ in laws, official communications

The Central government on Friday opposed a public interest litigation (PIL) petition before the Delhi High Court seeking directions to the Central government to replace the terms ‘centre’ or ‘Central government’ with ‘Union government’ in all acts and legislations as well as official communications [Atmaram Saraogi v Union of India].Before a bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Narula, the Central government through advocate Kirtiman Singh said that the plea was unnecessary and not maintainable. Accordingly, the government sought dismissal of the plea.However, the Court adjourned the matter to December in view of the fact that a similar issue is pending before a Standing Committee of Rajya Sabha..The plea filed by an 84-year-old social activist, Atmaram Saraogi said that under the Constitution, India is a "Union of States” and there cannot be any conceptualisation of a ‘Central Government’ as it existed under the British Raj.The plea, filed through advocate Hemant Raj Phalpher and argued by Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, also sought striking down the definition of Central government as defined in the General Clauses Act as being ultra vires of the constitution.“Are we going to be casual about the phrases we use especially if the Union of India wants to clothe itself as if it is a different entity from the one it is? It is not the Central government. It is the Union of India,” argued.The Court said that it could not see any public interest involved in the petition and that there appeared to be no basis for the petitioner to say that the government should only use certain terms..Sankaranarayanan stated that he cannot pitch his case any higher than the fact that Constitution has not used the term at all. If the Constitution has not used the term, the creatures of the Constitution cannot use it either, he said..Thereafter, the Court questioned the petitioner if there was any provision in the Constitution that prevents the use of the term Central government.Sankaranarayanan said the Article 1 uses the term Union and not Central. He further said that the country has 'Union Territories' and not 'Central Territories'..Meanwhile, the Central government expressed its opposition to the petition.The Court then chose to defer the hearing till December.