The Malegaon Tipu Sultan photo case has reached the Mumbai High Court after the city’s deputy mayor challenged a police direction to remove the historical figure’s photograph from her official municipal office. The court has asked the Maharashtra government to clarify its position on the petition.
The petition was filed by Malegaon Municipal Corporation Deputy Mayor Shan-e-Hind Nihal Ahmed, a Samajwadi Party leader. A bench comprising Chief Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Adwait Sethna heard the matter on Wednesday and directed the state government to respond after briefly considering the petition.
Ahmed said her office inside the Malegaon Municipal Corporation premises displays photographs of at least 12 national and historical leaders. The photographs include those of Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj, Mahatma Gandhi, Rani Lakshmibai, Tipu Sultan, Subhas Chandra Bose, Fatima Sheikh, Savitribai Phule, Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar, freedom fighter Maulana Azad, Shaheed Bhagat Singh, Mahatma Jyotiba Phule and Rajarshi Shahu Maharaj.
The dispute began after Nilesh Kakade, the opposition leader in the Malegaon Municipal Corporation and a Shiv Sena member from the Eknath Shinde faction, complained about the display of Tipu Sultan’s photograph in Ahmed’s office. The police subsequently wrote to Ahmed, referring to a September 1965 circular and stating that only photographs of national leaders could be displayed on official premises.
Senior advocate Mukesh Vashi, appearing for Ahmed, told the court that the circulars and government resolutions cited by the authorities did not include the names of several figures whose photographs are displayed in the office. The names of Maulana Azad, Fatima Sheikh and Shaheed Bhagat Singh, among others, were not included in the lists relied upon by the authorities, he submitted.
Ahmed’s lawyers also argued that the police action appeared to object specifically to Tipu Sultan’s photograph, even though other photographs were displayed in the same office. They told the court that the petition was not driven by any specific intention or purpose. The lawyers further referred to the presence of Tipu Sultan’s photograph in the Nashik district court, where, they said, no similar action had been taken.
The case raises a question about how rules governing photographs in government and municipal premises are interpreted and enforced. The material before the court, however, concerns the specific police communication and the government circulars and resolutions cited in this dispute; the state government’s position has not yet been set out in the supplied report.
The Maharashtra government is expected to clarify its stand before the High Court in response to Ahmed’s petition. The court’s next directions will determine how the cited circular and government resolutions are to be considered in the Malegaon municipal office dispute.
