Read Time: 07 minutes

Synopsis

A division Supreme Court has today dismissed a petition challenging the Bombay High Court's decision dismissed a number of Public Interest Litigations (PILs) and writ petitions challenging the decision of the State authorities to rename Aurangabad and Osmanabad as Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar and Dharashiv, respectively.

Justices Hrishikesh Roy and SVN Bhatti, called the impugned judgement "to be reasoned" and observed that the state had followed the proper legal procedure before implementing the name changes.

The High Court's division bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya alongside Justice Arif S. Doctor, ruled that the notifications renaming the cities were not illegal.

It further said “we have no hesitation to conclude that so far as the challenge made by the Petitioners to rename the revenue areas of Aurangabad and Osmanabad to Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar and Dharashiv, respectively, is concerned, the statutory provisions contained in Section 4 of the MLRC (Maharashtra Land Revenue Code) have been followed and in absence of any procedural flaw, we are unable to subscribe to the submissions made by the Petitioners.”

Drawing from Shakespeare's "Romeo and Juliet" during hearings, the court quoted Juliet's famous line, "What’s in a name? That which we call a rose By any other name would smell as sweet," highlighting the enduring debate over the significance of names.

Notably, the initiative to rename Aurangabad as Sambhajinagar and Osmanabad as Dharashiv was approved during the last cabinet meeting of the previous Maha Vikas Aghadi (MVA) government led by former Chief Minister Uddhav Thackeray on June 29, 2021. However, the subsequent government under Chief Minister Shinde-Fadnavis added the prefix "Chhatrapati" to Aurangabad's new name, leading to Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar.

The petitions were filed following the government’s decision and contested the renaming of both cities as well as their corresponding revenue areas, comprising districts, subdivisions, talukas, and villages.

The petitioners argued that the renaming was unconstitutional, citing a previous attempt to change Aurangabad's name in 2001, which was aborted. Additionally, they accused the government of attempting to sow religious discord for political gains, especially concerning Aurangabad's Muslim-majority population.

The Maharashtra government countered these allegations, asserting that renaming the cities after revered historical figures did not have religious connotations. It claimed that the renaming of Osmanabad to Dharashiv was met with widespread celebration and did not undermine secularism or provoke communal tensions.

The state further contended that the renaming does not infringe upon any fundamental rights of citizens, as citizens do not possess an inherent right to the name of a city or revenue area.

Citing the judgment from a coordinate bench of the court in the case of ‘Mohd. Mustaq Ahemad Vs. State of Maharashtra,’ which concluded that altering the name of a revenue area can be done even without changes to its boundaries, the Advocate General Dr. Birendra B. Saraf, emphasised that the scheme of Section 4 delineates that after the constitution of a revenue area under various subsections, including 4(1)(i) to 4(1)(v), the State Government possesses the authority to exercise various powers, including altering boundaries by amalgamation, division, or abolition, as well as renaming. He further contended that these powers are independent of each other, debunking the petitioners' contentions as misconceived.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, Chief Standing Counsel Siddharth Dharmadhikari, AOR Aaditya A. Pande, Advocate Shrirang Varma, Advocate Sourav Singh and Advocate Aaditya Krishna appeared for State of Maharashtra.