Federalism will not be diluted by merely using term 'Central Government' instead of 'Union Government': Delhi High Court

Federalism is a part of the basic structure of the Indian Constitution and it will not be diluted merely because the expression 'Central Government' is used and not 'Union Government', the Delhi High Court recently held [Atmaram Saraogi v Union of India]..A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Mini Pushkarna rejected the contention that the use of the expression "Central Government" gives the wrong impression that State governments are subordinate to the Union government.“The contention of the petitioner that use of the expression 'Central Government' gives the wrong impression that State governments are subordinate to the Union Government, is totally unacceptable. The Federal structure of the Constitution of our country is one of the essential and basic features of the Constitution. Federalism, which is the basic structure of our Constitution, cannot be said to be diluted or violated in any manner by use of the expression 'Central government.' Basic structure of our Constitution is the foundation on which the governance of our country is rooted,” the Court held. .The Court made the observation while dismissing a public interest litigation (PIL) petition seeking directions to replace the term 'Central Government' with 'Union Government' in all laws, legislations and official communications.An 84-year-old social activist named Atmaram Saraogi had filed the PIL arguing that under the Constitution, India is a 'Union of States' and that there cannot be any concept of a 'Central Government' as it existed under the British Raj.The plea sought the striking down of the definition of Central government as defined in the General Clauses Act as being ultra vires the Constitution.“Article 1 of the Constitution of India used the words ‘The Union and its Territory’ and states that 'India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States.' Interestingly, the terms ‘Centre’ or ‘Central Government’ have consciously not been used in any of the 395 articles divided in 22 parts and/or in eight schedules of the Constitution of India,” the plea stated..In a detailed order passed on December 19, the High Court noted that the Constitution has used the expressions “Union”, “Union of India”, “Government of India” as well as “Central Government” extensively at various places.“Accordingly, it is manifest that the Constitution itself has used various expressions to indicate the Government which is the Government of the country viz. the Union of India, the Central Government or the Government of India. This fact becomes all the more clear by reference to Article 300 of the Constitution which categorically states that 'Government of India' may sue or be sued by the name of Union of India... Reading of Article 300 of the Constitution clearly demonstrates that it is the 'Government of India' which is being referred to as the 'Union of India,'" the Court said. .The Court emphasised that the Government of India is the government which is at the Centre. Therefore, the Constitution also uses the expression “Central Government” and there is no bar to using the expressions, “Central Government”, “Government of India” or “Union of India” interchangeably, the Court reasoned. .It also referred to the definition of the expression “Central Government” in the General Clauses Act, 1897 and held that the intent of the legislature was very clear that the expression “Central Government” includes the “Government of India” which includes the “Union of India”.“It may also be noted that the expression 'Central Government', 'Union of India' as well as 'Government of India' have been used vastly in various statutes and connote the Government of the country in interchangeable expressions. Thus, when the Constitution as well as other Statutes have applied various expressions to connote the Government of the country, this Court will not enter into the arena of legislation, which is not within the domain of this Court," the Court added. .Therefore, it dismissed the PIL petition..Senior Advocate DN Goburdan along with advocates Hemant Raj Phalpher and Shivam Pundhir appeared for the petitioner, Atmaram Saraogi.The Union of India was represented by Central Government Standing Counsel (CGSC) Kirtiman Singh as well as advocates Waize Ali Noor and Shreya V Mehra..[Read Judgment]