Jahanvi Agarwal
On 2nd August 2024, the Supreme Court dismissed appeals challenging the Maharashtra State authority’s decision to rename the city and revenue divisions of Aurangabad and Osmanabad to Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar and Dharashiv, respectively. Justices Hrishikesh Roy and SVN Bhatti presided over the bench and upheld the Bombay High Court’s previous order, describing it as well-reasoned.
The Supreme Court stated that renaming decisions often evoke diverse opinions and are not within the scope of judicial review. “See, for people living in an area, there will always be agreement and disagreement over the name of the place. Should courts solve it by judicial review? If they have power to name, then they can rename too. It is a reasoned order (of the Bombay High Court). Why should it be faulted?” the Court remarked. They also confirmed that the State had largely adhered to the legal procedures required to change the names of the two cities.
In May, the Bombay High Court dismissed petitions challenging the renaming process. The decision to rename Aurangabad and Osmanabad was initially made by the previous Maha Vikas Aghadi (MVA) government led by Uddhav Thackeray in a cabinet meeting on June 29, 2021. The new government under Chief Minister Eknath Shinde reaffirmed this decision on July 16, 2022. This led to a series of petitions from residents in the affected districts, which were eventually rejected by the High Court and subsequently brought to the Supreme Court.
The Maharashtra government argued that renaming ‘Osmanabad’ to ‘Dharashiv’ did not incite religious or communal discord. Advocate SB Talekar, representing the petitioners, claimed the proper procedures outlined in the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code were not followed, as there was no draft notification inviting objections or suggestions and no alteration of territorial boundaries.
The Supreme Court, however, found that the procedures were “broadly followed” and did not see them as unreasonable. “We are finding that they have broadly followed procedure that is not unreasonable,” the Bench stated. Talekar countered, saying, “It has not been,” to which the Court responded, “There will always be people who say it should be A, others B or C. Decision has to be taken by the State. All your contentions have been dealt with by the High Court and reasonably. Sorry, we won’t interfere.”
The Court also noted that this case was not comparable to the ongoing case regarding the name change of Allahabad, as mentioned by Talekar during his arguments. “It is not comparable to Allahabad,” the Court clarified while rejecting the plea.
Case Name: Shaikh Masud Ismail Shaikh and Ors v. Union of India and Ors.
Dairy Number: 145/2023
Bench: Justices Hrishikesh Roy and SVN Bhatti