Today, the division bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Mini Pushkarna of the Delhi High Court rejected a public interest litigation (PIL) petition that aimed to replace the term 'Central Government' with 'Union Government' across laws, legislation, and official communications.

The Court commented that the terms 'Union of India,' 'Union Government,' or 'Central Government' are commonly used interchangeably, and there doesn't seem to be any issue with this interchangeable usage.

It added that the Supreme Court of India is also referred to as the Apex Court.

Following this discussion, the Court proceeded to reject the plea, indicating that a comprehensive order regarding the decision would be provided. The petitioner, an 84-year-old social activist named Atmaram Saraogi, had filed the PIL based on the argument that according to the Constitution, India is defined as a "Union of States." He contended that the concept of a 'Central Government' resembling the one during the British Raj shouldn't exist.

The plea aimed to invalidate the definition of the central Government as outlined in the General Clauses Act, asserting that this definition went beyond the powers granted by the Constitution.

According to the petition, the Constitutional interpretation of the term 'Centre' implies that the 'Central Government' holds the central authority, potentially misrepresenting the intended relationship between State Governments and the Union Government. The argument posited in the PIL was that this portrayal contradicts the framers' original intent behind the Constitution, suggesting that State Governments are subservient or inferior to the Union government, which was not the intended structure envisioned during the framing of the Constitution.

In the petition, references to Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru and Dr. B.R. Ambedkar were made to underscore their views, indicating that, according to these key figures in India's founding, the use of 'Union of States' would accurately convey the idea that the federation is a cohesive union because of its indestructible nature. This viewpoint aimed to align with the perspective that the term 'Union of States' better embodies the enduring unity of the federation as envisioned by the architects of the Constitution.

Case Title: Atmaram Saraogi v Union of India