The Bombay High Court has sought responses on Malegaon deputy mayor Shaan E Hind Nihal Ahmed’s petition challenging a municipal order directing her to remove a photograph of Tipu Sultan from her office in the Malegaon Municipal Corporation building.
Ahmed has also challenged state government circulars issued in 2002 and on September 15, 1965, which set out an approved list of portraits of 24 national leaders that may be displayed in public offices. The petition places the dispute within the wider question of how such directions apply to elected representatives’ municipal offices.
According to submissions made before the court, Ahmed had displayed photographs of 12 national leaders in the chamber allotted to her at the municipal corporation building. The corporation secretary issued an order on August 27 directing her to display only photographs of the 24 leaders listed in the government resolutions. A further order, dated August 31, specifically directed the removal of the Tipu Sultan photograph.
Ahmed also received a copy of a letter addressed by the leader of the Opposition to the chief minister objecting to the photograph. She later replaced it with an image showing Rani Laxmibai alongside Tipu Sultan, but that photograph was also objected to, her counsel told the court.
Senior counsel Mukesh Vashi, appearing for the deputy mayor, argued that the government circulars could be treated as directory rather than mandatory. He also submitted that photographs of Tipu Sultan were displayed at other public institutions, including a district court, Parliament’s Central Library and the Delhi Legislative Assembly. Vashi further argued that there had been no objection to photographs of other leaders displayed by Ahmed whose names were not included in the approved list.
The state and Malegaon police opposed the petition on the issue of maintainability. Additional government pleader Bhupesh Samant made the submission before a bench comprising Chief Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Advait Sethna.
The High Court issued notice seeking responses and posted the matter after three weeks for hearing. The court’s notice does not amount to a final ruling on whether the municipal order or the government circulars are legally enforceable.
