A practicing lawyer and BJP leader Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, has filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in the Delhi High Court. The PIL requests the Center and State to use the specific terms "Panth/Sampradaya" instead of the more general term "Dharma" in official documents such as Birth Certificates, Aadhaar cards, School certificates, Ration cards, Driving licenses, Domicile certificates, Death certificates, and bank accounts. Additionally, the plea aims to introduce a chapter on "Dharma and Religion" into primary and secondary school curriculums to educate the public and mitigate religious-based hatred and hate speeches.

According to the petitioner, it was emphasized that "Dharma should not be equated with religion." The petitioner explained that "Dharma is unifying, all-encompassing, and not definitive. It represents a journey to comprehend the universal order of the cosmos and the personal order of consciousness. In essence, 'Dharma' surpasses the confined confines of religion."

The plea also underscored that religion refers to a cult or a spiritual tradition referred to as a "Sampradaya" or community. Hence, religion signifies a community.

The plea quoted Mahatma Vidura to highlight its argument, stating, "Dharma transcends boundaries. Upholding the well-being of trees is Dharma. Preserving the purity of air, water, and land is Dharma. Acting as a protector and advocate for the welfare and progress of citizens is Dharma. Dharma unites people and creatures, serving as a guide that teaches the art of balancing one's duties with the rights of others."

The plea further articulated that religion exerts influence on a collective of people, where individuals follow a particular figure or path. In contrast, Dharma is a product of wisdom and inner understanding.

The plea argued that the term "religion" is a "Western concept," and the Indian concept does not conform to the notions of religion, Hinduism, or any specific "ism." Instead, it is described as "Sanatana Dharma," representing the eternal law of the universe. This concept cannot be encapsulated in a fixed and definitive set of principles.

Case: ASHWINI KUMAR UPADHYAY v. UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS.