[dropcap]T[/dropcap]HE Supreme Court today issued notice to the Uttar Pradesh Government on a petition filed by the Allahabad Heritage Society challenging the Allahabad High Court’s dismissal of a petition challenging the decision of the UP government to change the name of the district of Allahabad to Prayagraj.
The petition filed through Advocate on Record (AoR) Shadan Farasat states that the “‘Allahabad’ has been associated with the City for over more than 400 years. The name now is not merely the name of a place but has become inextricably linked with the identity of the City and all its people irrespective of their religion.
“It forms part of the day-to-day lived cultural experience of the residents of the City and the Districts of Allahabad. As a result, it is used a defining marker of the people and specialities from the region. For instance, the “Allahabadi Guava”, “Allahabadi Cake” are some examples of things that are distinctly Allahabadi”, the petitioner says.
It is further argued that the name changes per-se is an assault on a lived cultural experience, which is associated with a City, Place, etc. For instance, although the name of “Connaught Place” has been changed to Rajiv Chowk many years back, the people of the City of Delhi always refer in their day to day conversation to the place as Connaught Place only.
“Particularly, when a certain name has been associated with a place for hundreds of years, entire communities, languages and identities are formed around the name of City/District, an abrupt overnight change to such a name by an executive fiat is a clear assault on the right under Article 29(1) of Constitution of India of the Petitioners to conserve their culture”, the petitioner says.
Further, the petitioner contends that the right to life includes the right to live with a sense of identity, heritage and history. The petitioner, thus, submits that the name of a City when it forms a part of both a distinct culture of a community as well as a composite culture will also necessarily be a part of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
“This is also in consonance with the concept of Secularism, that finds a mention in the Preamble and has been held to be a basic structure of the Constitution”, petitioner adds.
Assailing the findings of the High Court, the petitioner has said that the High Court has gravely erred in holding that the State Government had the authority under Section 6(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 2006 without noting the contention of the petitioners that the Uttar Pradesh Land Revenue Code only grants the power to the State Government to effect changes in names of revenue areas for the purpose of amalgamation, readjustment and division of revenue areas and not for alleged historical or cultural reasons.
“The State Government has incorrectly contended that Allahabad was previously called Prayagraj without citing any evidence. Prayag and Allahabad were two separate entities. Prayag was the point of confluence of the Ganges and Yamuna rivers which was a place of pilgrimage and was never the name given to the city. Moreover, the place of pilgrimage is still called Prayag. For this reason, there still exists a “Prayag Railway Station” and a “Prayag post office” in the area. Thus, the reasoning of the State Government is completely fallacious and also goes against the District Gazetteer of Allahabad”, the petitioner says.
The petitioner has asserted that the decision of the UP Government to change the name of Allahabad as Prayagraj violates Article 29 read with Article 51A(f) of the Constitution of India which protects India’s composite culture
