The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking to replace the term 'Hindutva' with 'Indian Constitutionalism' or "Bharatiya Samidhaanitva" in its judgments. The bench head, Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, with Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, termed the petition an abuse of the legal process and refused to entertain it.

“We will not hear this petition. This is a complete abuse of the process," stated the bench, swiftly putting an end to the matter.

 

What is Hindutva’s relevance in the judiciary?

 

While the term 'Hindutva' does not appear in the Indian Constitution, it has been interpreted and discussed in several Supreme Court rulings. The ideology, which promotes the preservation of Hindu culture and tradition, gained legal attention in a landmark 1995 verdict when the court described Hindutva as "a way of life." The judgment came during a case involving speeches made by Shiv Sena founder Bal Thackeray.

In its ruling, the court said, "The words 'Hinduism' or 'Hindutva' are not necessarily to be understood and construed narrowly, confined only to strict Hindu religious practices unrelated to the culture and ethos of the people of India, depicting the way of life of the Indian people.”

Why has this debate resurfaced?

The dismissed PIL, filed by Delhi resident SN Kundra, sought to alter how the term 'Hindutva' is used in judicial discourse, proposing that it be replaced with a term more aligned with the constitutional framework. This is not the first time the issue has come up. In 2016, a petition asked the Supreme Court to review its 1995 ruling. However, the court declined, stating it would not delve into the broader debate surrounding the definition of Hindutva.

Once again, the apex court has decided not to reconsider its earlier stance, dismissing the latest plea as baseless.