C.W.P. No. 18634 of 2011 1 In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh … C.W.P. No. 18634 of 2011 Date of decision: 3.10.2011 Birender Kaur and another ..Petitioners Versus Union of India ..Respondent Coram: Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Narain Raina Present: Mr. Navkiran Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. .. 1. To be referred to the reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? Rajiv Narain Raina,J. 1. We are indeed peeved at the prayer made in this petition filed as Public Interest Litigation under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution for a declaration that the use of the word “Hindu” in the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, The Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 and The Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 is illegal and the same infringes upon the fundamental rights of members of other religious communities to whom those Acts apply. The further prayer is to declare the use of the word 'Hindu' in the above context as ultra vires the fundamental rights of the petitioners enshrined under Articles, 14, 15, 25, 26 and 29 of the Constitution of India. 2. It has been suggested in para 20 of the petition that the word, “Hindu” should be replaced in following manner:- C.W.P. No. 18634 of 2011 2 “As a rectifying measure, the same could be replaced by any other suitable, neutral word, which is equally reflective of all the members of the Group to whom the current Hindu Acts apply. The word used for nomenclature could be of the like- National/ Regional/ Bharti/ Indoi/ Indic/ Popular/ Homeland/ Denizen,or so on so forth. For example, the Acts of the Hindu Law could be titled, say, “National Marriage Act”, and so on and so forth, and applied to the present group without having to club the member religious by the name of any one religion. (While finalizing the new word/nomenclature, the ultimate applicability/appropriateness of the same to the futuristic Uniform Civil Code should also be kept in mind.)” 3. Mr. Navkiran Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners contends that these Acts apply not only to Hindus, but also to Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains and some others as well. This clubbing of religious groups in the enactments, it is argued, is against the spirit of the Constitution as the word 'Hindu', even though it is applied jointly to a group but it ultimately discriminates against the other religions. It is further argued that India is a secular State and that it cannot propagate or promote any religion in violation of the fundamental freedoms guaranteed under Chapter III of the Constitution and that this Court should issue a mandamus to delete the word, “Hindu” from the four enactments and replace it by some other secular word as suggested in the extracted portion of the writ petition supra. 4. We are at loss to understand as to how this court can, in any of the jurisdictions it exercises, issue a writ of mandamus to Parliament to cause a change in the title of an Act. Hinduism, as we have been made to C.W.P. No. 18634 of 2011 3 understand by scholars and sages at different times and different ages is not a strait jacket religion; it is a way of life. It is a “Dharma”. Hindus are not one people but many. Therein lies the beauty of India. 5. We have no doubt that this matter lies exclusively in the domain of Parliament. We have no authority to change the title of an Act duly passed by the legislature in its wisdom, just as we have no business to ask an author to change the title of his book because we feel it may be more appropriate or attractive. In fact the life of law lies in substance and content and not the form in which it is clothed. The title is no more than a key to an Act; no more than a thumb nail indication of the subject matter to follow, aimed more for convenience of indexing, reference, and application. We would be mortified in issuing any direction of the kind prayed for. We can only remind ourselves and the learned counsel for the petitioners to revisit, inter alia, Explanation II to Article 25(2) of the Constitution, which reads thus:- “Explanation II.- In sub-clause (b) of clause (2), the reference to Hindus shall be construed as including a reference to persons professing the Sikh, Jaina or Buddhist religion, and the reference to Hindu religious institutions shall be construed accordingly.” 6. The Constitution makers were therefore fully conscious of the broad and comprehensive character of Hindu religion and its legendary tolerance. The arms of the Constitution warmly embrace all the citizens of India irrespective of caste, creed, sex, religion, denomination or religious dogma and theological beliefs. It respects all. Things will not fall apart merely because of the use of the word Hindu in the Statutes. India would not become less secular with the use of the word. Nothing depends on it. Sikhs, Jains and Buddhists live happily under the umbrella of the Acts C.W.P. No. 18634 of 2011 4 subject to custom and usage. The clubbing of the groups results in no prejudice; no hostile or invidious discrimination and no identity crisis within the range of selection. It is constitutionally recognized and protected. We do not for a moment countenance any argument in the present case questioning the vires of the word Hindu as employed in any of the four enactments or that it violates any constitutional provision. We also fail to see what public interest is involved in this petition. 7. The view propounded in the petition is myopic, fissiparous and uncalled for. It tends to break a homogeneous class asunder. 8. We have no hesitation in dismissing the petition at the threshold. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. 9. Before parting with the judgment, we feel constrained to say that we find petitions filed in this court casually invoking both Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution simultaneously even in cases where this court is not called upon to exercise its power of superintendence over any order or decision of a Court or Tribunal just as in this case. (M.M.KUMAR) (RAJIV NARAIN RAINA) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE October 3,2011 nk