Govt approves renaming of 25 places in past one year
New Delhi, Nov 11: The Centre has given consent to the renaming of at least 25 towns and villages across India in the past one year and among the pending proposals is one for the state of West Bengal, according to officials.
Allahabad and Faizabad are the latest additions to the growing list of places that have been renamed.
Several proposals, including the renaming of West Bengal as 'Bangla', are pending with the central government. The process is a long-drawn one with the involvement of multiple central ministries and departments.
The Union Home Ministry has given consent to the proposals of name change in 25 villages and towns in different parts of the country in last one year, a senior ministry official told PTI.
The proposals to change the names of Allahabad to Prayagraj and Faizabad to Ayodhya are yet to be received by the ministry from the Uttar Pradesh government, the official said.
Some of the approved name change proposals are: Rajahmundry as Rajamahendravaram in East Godavari district of Andhra Pradesh; Outer Wheeler as A P J Abdul Kalam Island, situated in Bhadrak district of Odisha; Arikkod as Areekode in Malappura district of Kerala; Pindari as Pandu-Pindara in Jind district of Haryana; and Samphur as Sanphure in Kiphire district of Nagaland.
Other renaming proposals approved by the ministry include Landgewadi to Narsinhagaon in Sangali district of Maharashtra; Garhi Sampla as Ch. Sir Chhotu Ram Nagar in Rohtak district of Haryana; Khatu Kalan village as Bari Khatu in Nagour district of Rajasthan; Mihgawan Chhakka and Mihgawan Tilia as Mihgawan Sarkar and Mihgawan Ghat respectively in Panna district of Madhya Pradesh and Shukratal Khadar as Sukhtirth Khadar and Shukratal Bangar as Sukhtirth Bangar in Muzaffarnagar district in Uttar Pradesh.
However, a proposal to change the name of Kacharigaon to Phevima in Dimapur district of Nagaland was rejected by the home ministry recently, the official said.
The home ministry considers such proposals according to the existing guidelines in consultations with agencies concerned, another official said.
The home ministry gives its consent to the change of name of any place after taking no-objections from the Ministry of Railways, Department of Posts and Survey of India.
These organisations have to confirm that there is no such town or village in their records with a name similar to the proposed one.
The renaming of a state requires amendment of the Constitution with a simple majority in Parliament. For changing the name of a village or town, an executive order is needed.
The proposal to change the name of West Bengal to 'Bangla', as suggested by the state government, was recently forwarded by the home ministry to the Ministry of External Affairs for its opinion as the proposed name sounded similar to the name of neighbouring country Bangladesh, the official said.
On Thursday, Gujarat Chief Minister Vijay Rupani said the state government was considering renaming Ahmedabad as Karnavati and the name change could be effected before next year's Lok Sabha elections.
BJP leader Raja Singh said on Thursday that the party would "aim" to rename Hyderabad and other cities in the state after the names of great people if it is elected to power in Telangana after the forthcoming assembly polls.
Last year, the Centre had approved the proposal to rename the iconic Mughalsarai railway station to Deen Dayal Upadhyaya (DDU) station after the Jan Sangh leader who was found dead in the railway station in 1968.
Approval was also given to add the word "Maharaj" in Mumbai's iconic Chhatrapati Shivaji Terminus. It is now known as Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj Terminus.
The name of any state was changed last time in 2011, when Orissa became Odisha. Names of Bombay was changed to Mumbai in 1995, Madras to Chennai in 1996, Calcutta to Kolkata in 2001.
The central government had approved the renaming of 11 cities of Karnataka, that included Bangalore as Bengaluru, in 2014.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Delhi HC Judge Justice Sharma to pass order on recusal plea by Kejriwal at 4.30 pm
New Delhi (PTI): Delhi High Court Judge Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma on Monday said that she would pronounce her verdict at 4.30 pm on pleas by Arvind Kejriwal and others seeking her recusal in the liquor policy case, as she took on record additional pleadings by the AAP chief on his plea.
Justice Sharma said although the pronouncement was scheduled for 2:30 pm, she was "going out of her way" in accepting Kejriwal's rejoinder as a written submission in the matter.
The former chief minister virtually appeared before the judge through video conferencing and urged her to take on record his rejoinder to the written submissions filed by the CBI.
Even as Kejriwal asserted that the registry's refusal to take his rejoinder on record was "miscarriage of justice", Justice Sharma remarked that since he was not being represented by a lawyer, the court went "out of its way" for him when it permitted him to file his additional affidavit last week even after the order on the recusal issue was reserved.
The judge said that as per the registry's rule, a party in-person must take permission from the court to file anything and since the present case was not "extraordinary", the same practice was being followed.
She added that in law, there is no concept of filing a "rejoinder" to the opposite party's written submissions, and she would permit Kejriwal to tender his pleadings as written submissions instead, so that he does not feel that he was not heard.
"You say you have respect for me. I have respect for every litigant. The rule of court will not be changed for anyone so I will treat it as written submissions. I am taking it on record. I am giving the indulgence to Mr Kejriwal," the court stated.
Solicitor general Tushar Mehta appeared for the CBI and opposed Kejriwal's request to file rejoinder. Mehta said nowhere in the country were pleadings taken on record after order was reserved a court.
He also said there is no concept of filing rejoinder to a written submission, and the court should do what it would do for any ordinary litigant.
Kejriwal had raised several objections against the judge hearing the CBI's plea against his discharge in the liquor policy case, including that she had earlier denied him relief on his petition challenging his arrest and refused to grant relief on the bail pleas of other accused, including Manish Sisodia and K Kavitha.
He also claimed that Justice Sharma had made "strong and conclusive" findings.
The former Delhi chief minister further alleged a "direct conflict of interest", claiming that the judge's children are empanelled central government lawyers who receive work through the solicitor general, who is appearing in the matter for the CBI.
Besides Kejriwal, the applications for recusal of the judge were also filed by AAP leaders Manish Sisodia and Durgesh Pathak.
Other respondents, including Vijay Nair and Arun Ramchandra Pillai, have also sought her recusal.
Solicitor General urged Justice Sharma to initiate contempt action against Kejriwal and others for seeking her recusal.
Terming concerns by Kejriwal and others as "apprehensions of an immature mind," Mehta told the court it was a matter of "institutional respect" and Justice Sharma should not succumb to pressure as her recusal on "unfounded allegations" would set a bad precedent.
On February 27, the trial court discharged Kejriwal, Sisodia and others in the Delhi liquor policy case, saying that the CBI's case was wholly unable to survive judicial scrutiny and stood discredited in its entirety.
