About the News: 

• Surprisingly, the government’s official representatives have not provided any clarification regarding this abrupt alteration.
• This unexpected modification in a highly formal communication originating from the country’s highest office caught the nation completely off guard.
• Supporters of the ruling authorities have put forth the argument that the name ‘Bharat’ is interchangeable with ‘India,’ as stated in Article 1 of the Constitution.
• Consequently, they contend that ‘Bharat’ can be legitimately used.
• It is important to note that Parliament holds the absolute authority to change the country’s name by amending the Constitution, a power enshrined in Article 368. This amendment authority extends to all aspects of the Constitution, including the country’s designation, as specified in Article 1.

Potential for Confusion:

India’s official name is the Republic of India, a designation used consistently in all official communications with foreign countries and international organizations. Agreements and treaties signed with foreign nations bear the name of the Republic of India, not the Republic of Bharat.

• The interchangeability of ‘Bharat’ with ‘India’ in official communication can give rise to significant confusion. Foreign governments and international bodies rely on clarity and consistency in official documents. Mixing ‘India’ and ‘Bharat’ in agreements can lead to foreign governments encountering discrepancies. In some agreements, India would be referred to as the Republic of India, while in others, it might be mentioned as the Republic of Bharat.
• A nation can possess only one official name. This means that it must be either ‘India’ or ‘Bharat,’ but not both. Clarity in nomenclature is crucial, especially in the realm of international diplomacy and legal commitments.

In 2015, Centre opposed a name change, stating that the issue had been extensively deliberated upon during the Constitution’s drafting. The Supreme Court has twice rejected pleas to rename ‘India’ to ‘Bharat’, once in 2016 and then in 2020, reaffirming that “Bharat” and “India” both find mention in the Constitution.

‘India’ and ‘Bharat’ in Constitutional Discourse: 

The Indian Constitution, in Article 1, recognizes both names as integral to the identity of the nation. 

The Name ‘Bharat’: 

• ‘Bharat’ traces its origins to ancient Indian texts, notably the Puranic literature and the epic Mahabharata. The latter references the legendary king Bharata, celebrated for his role in the epic and as a symbol of unity.
• ‘Bharat’ signifies a supra-regional and subcontinental territory united by the Brahmanical societal framework, emphasizing a united cultural and religious identity transcending regional boundaries.
• Closely linked to the legendary King Bharata, ‘Bharat’ is associated with the Rig Vedic tribe of the Bharatas. King Bharata’s lineage connects to various Indian communities, underscoring a shared ancestry and heritage.
• In the Hindi language, ‘Bharat’ serves as the official name of India, as affirmed by Article 1 of the Indian Constitution.

The Name ‘India’: 

• India’ has its historical roots in the term ‘Indus,’ originally referring to the Indus River. Over time, linguistic transformations led to the Persianized version ‘Hindu.’
• ‘Hindu’ evolved into ‘Hindustan,’ signifying the ‘Land of the Hindus’ beyond the Indus River, encompassing much of the Indian subcontinent.
• ‘Hindustan’ was employed by various ancient civilizations, including Persians, Greeks, and Islamic empires, to describe the vast subcontinental territory, highlighting its geographical expanse and cultural diversity.
• During the European Age of Exploration, ‘India’ was adopted as the name for the subcontinent, reinforced during the British colonial era when it became the official name for British-ruled territories.
• Post-independence, ‘India’ retained its status as the official name of the newly formed nation, as declared in the Indian Constitution.

The Indian Constitution: 

• Before India’s independence in 1947, the Indian subcontinent was divided into British India and numerous princely states, each ruled by its own monarch. After gaining independence, the challenge was to integrate these diverse regions into a united and sovereign nation.
• During the Constitution’s drafting, there was significant debate over which name to use. Some opposed ‘India’ due to its colonial connotations and advocated for a name with deeper indigenous roots. ‘Bharat’ held historical and cultural significance, symbolizing a united identity and indigenous heritage.
• The framers of the Indian Constitution recognized the cultural and historical diversity of the nation. They sought to bridge linguistic and cultural differences by acknowledging both ‘Bharat’ and ‘India.’ This inclusive approach aimed to unify the nation while respecting its rich heritage.
• A compromise was reached, resulting in Article 1 reading, “India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States,” accommodating both names to symbolize unity in diversity.
• This dual nomenclature in the Constitution reflects India’s diverse linguistic, cultural, and historical backgrounds, promoting a shared national identity and inclusivity.

Constitutional intricacies of matter: 

1. Article 52: According to Article 52 of the Indian Constitution, there is a provision for a ‘President of India.’ This official nomenclature is fundamental and legally binding, and any alteration of this title would necessitate a constitutional amendment.

2. Article 1: India, that is Bharat

• Article 1 of the Indian Constitution holds paramount importance as it deals with the name and territorial jurisdiction of India.
• It declares India as a federation of states and outlines the territories that constitute India. 
• Furthermore, it grants the Parliament the authority to admit new states or modify existing ones.
• Key Provisions: 
  • Admission or Establishment of New States: Article 1 empowers the Parliament to admit new states into the Union or create new states. This provision has been utilized multiple times in India’s history for administrative or linguistic reasons, resulting in the formation of states like Telangana and Uttarakhand.
  • Formation of Union Territories: In addition to new states, Article 1 allows for the creation of Union Territories, which are regions directly governed by the central government. This provision has been used to designate areas like Chandigarh and Lakshadweep as Union Territories.
  • Alteration of Boundaries: Article 1 also permits the alteration of state boundaries through constitutional amendments, enabling adjustments to address regional concerns or state reorganizations.
  • Names and Boundaries: Detailed names and boundaries of states and Union Territories are not specified in the Constitution but are determined by laws enacted by Parliament. This flexibility allows for adjustments as needed without requiring constitutional amendments.

3. Article 394A: 

Article 394A (2) stipulates that “the translation of this Constitution…shall be construed to have the same meaning as the original thereof.” This clause reinforces a fundamental point: ‘Bharat’ is a translation of the word ‘India’ as used in the original Constitution. Until legally altered, ‘India’ remains the authentic name of the country.

• Article 394A of the Indian Constitution addresses the authoritative text in the Hindi language. 
• It outlines the President’s responsibility to publish a translation of the Constitution in Hindi. 
• This translation, signed by the members of the Constituent Assembly, aims to align with the language, style, and terminology used in the authoritative texts of Central Acts in Hindi. 
• Furthermore, it incorporates all amendments made to the Constitution before publication.
• Article 394A (2) emphasizes that the translation, along with any amendments, should be construed to have the same meaning as the original Constitution. In cases where interpreting certain parts of the translation poses challenges, the President is tasked with revising it suitably.
• The translation published under Article 394A carries the authority of being the official text in the Hindi language. This means that it serves as a reference for understanding the Constitution in Hindi-speaking regions.

Let use also understand the, Constitutional Amendment Process in India as per Article 368 mentioned in the News: 

• Amending the Constitution of India is a meticulous process aimed at making alterations to the nation’s fundamental law, the supreme law that governs the country.
• This process is detailed in Part XX (Article 368) of the Indian Constitution.
• The primary objective of this procedure is to uphold the sanctity of the Constitution and act as a check on the arbitrary exercise of power by the Parliament of India.
• The concept of amending the Indian Constitution was borrowed from the South African constitution, reflecting a global perspective on constitutional evolution.
• In the Keshavananda Bharati Judgment, Supreme Court established that Parliament cannot amend parts of the Constitution that are considered part of the ‘Basic Structure’ of the constitution. This ruling ensures that certain core principles remain inviolable.

The Amendment Process: Article 368 in Part XX of the Constitution empowers the Parliament to amend the Constitution. However, it comes with significant constraints to safeguard the fundamental principles.

Types of Amendments

• Simple Majority: This amendment type requires the support of more than 50% of the members present and voting in both houses of Parliament.
• Special Majority: To pass an amendment under this category, a bill must be supported by a majority of two-thirds of the members present and voting, along with over 50% of the total strength of the House.
• Special Majority of Parliament and Consent of States: This complex form of amendment is necessary when changes impact federal structures. In addition to special majority approval in both houses of Parliament, it also necessitates the consent of half of the state legislatures by a simple majority.
• Absolute Majority: For certain amendments, a bill must receive the approval of more than 50% of the total strength of the house.

The Detailed Amendment Procedure

• Initiation of Amendment: An amendment can be proposed only by introducing a bill in either house of Parliament. This bill can be initiated by a minister or a private member and does not require the President’s permission.
• Special Majority Approval: The bill must be passed in each house by a special majority, which entails approval by the majority of the total membership and by two-thirds of the members present and voting.
• State Legislature Ratification: If the amendment seeks to modify constitutional provisions, it must be ratified by the legislatures of half of the states through a simple majority.
• Presidential Assent: After both houses approve the bill, it is presented to the President for assent. The President is obligated to grant assent without the option to withhold approval or send the bill back for reconsideration.
• Becoming an Act: Once the President grants assent, the bill becomes an act, solidifying the constitutional change.