The Bombay High Court has directed the Maharashtra government to clarify its position on a petition challenging police instructions to remove a portrait of Tipu Sultan from the office of Malegaon Municipal Corporation’s deputy mayor. The petition was filed by deputy mayor Shan-e-Hind Nihal Ahmed, who argued that the objection was being applied selectively in an official office displaying portraits of several historical and national figures.
A division bench comprising Chief Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Adwait Sethna heard Ahmed’s petition on Wednesday and asked the state government to respond. The court did not decide the legality of displaying the portrait, and the report does not indicate that it issued a final order on the dispute.
Ahmed, a Samajwadi Party leader, has displayed portraits of at least 12 figures in her deputy mayor’s office. The list cited in the petition includes Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj, Mahatma Gandhi, Rani Lakshmibai, Tipu Sultan, Subhas Chandra Bose, Fatima Sheikh, Savitribai Phule, Dr B R Ambedkar, freedom fighter Maulana Azad, Shaheed Bhagat Singh, Mahatma Jyotiba Phule and Rajarshi Shahu Maharaj.
The dispute began after Malegaon Municipal Corporation opposition leader Nilesh Kakade, a Shiv Sena member from the Eknath Shinde faction, complained about the installation of Tipu Sultan’s portrait in the office located within the civic building premises. The police subsequently wrote to Ahmed, referring to a September 1965 circular and stating that only portraits of national leaders could be displayed in official premises.
During the hearing, senior advocate Mukesh Vashi, representing Ahmed, told the court that the circulars and government resolutions cited by the authorities did not include the names of several figures whose portraits were displayed in the office, including Maulana Azad, Fatima Sheikh and Shaheed Bhagat Singh. The petitioner’s side argued that despite this, the objection had been raised specifically against Tipu Sultan’s portrait.
Ahmed’s lawyers also told the court that the petition was not driven by any specific intention or objective. They cited the presence of Tipu Sultan’s portrait in the Nashik district court, where, according to the submissions, no similar action had been taken. The petition further claimed that portraits of several other figures not included in the government’s list of national leaders were being displayed in official offices.
The case places the administration’s rules for portraits in government premises before the High Court, while also raising questions about how such circulars and government resolutions are interpreted by public authorities. The state government’s response will determine the next stage of the proceedings.
