Examine the significance of the judiciary's independent constitutional status from the State executive, using the example of High Courts retaining pre-renaming names (Bombay, Calcutta, Madras, Kerala).

High Courts are creatures of the Constitution, not of State governments. This distinction surfaced sharply when the Union notified the renaming of "Kerala" as "Keralam" [2], yet the High Court of Kerala retained its name — a small nomenclature issue that reveals a large constitutional principle.

Separate constitutional footing

• Renaming a State flows from Article 3, under which Parliament legislates after the President refers the Bill to the State Assembly for its (non-binding) views [1][2].
• Renaming a High Court does not follow automatically; it needs a standalone Act of Parliament, as the High Courts (Alteration of Names) Bill, 2016 attempted for Bombay, Calcutta and Madras [3].
• The judiciary is thus not an appendage of the "State government" whose letterheads and seals a Chief Secretary can revise by executive circular [4].

The renaming example as evidence of insulation

• Bombay, Calcutta and Madras High Courts kept their names for decades after their cities became Mumbai, Kolkata and Chennai; the 2016 Bill did not become law [3].
• The Calcutta High Court's Full Court declined the proposed change, showing that institutional views of the judiciary are sought, not overridden [3].
• Kerala now repeats this settled pattern [4].

Significance for governance

• Separation of powers: an institution that adjudicates against the State cannot have its identity redefined unilaterally by that State.
• Continuity of judicial record: pending proceedings, precedents and instruments remain unaffected — the 2016 Bill had to expressly provide for substitution of names [3].
• Federal balance: nomenclature of constitutional courts is a matter for Parliament, insulating courts from shifting State-level political preferences.

Renaming symbolism is legitimate, but the Constitution deliberately routes it through Parliament and judicial consultation where courts are concerned. The way forward is a consultative, precedent-respecting process — one that lets States express identity while preserving the independence and institutional continuity that make High Courts credible guardians of rights.