Bombay High Court in its recent hearing, upheld the Maharashtra Government’s decision to rename Aurangabad as Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar and Osmanabad as Dharashiv after several petitions contested the renaming, alleging political motives behind the move
The Bombay High Court has upheld the Maharashtra Government’s decision to rename Aurangabad as Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar and Osmanabad as Dharashiv, rejecting multiple petitions challenging the move. A division bench comprising Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Arif Doctor ruled that there was no legal basis to interfere with the state government’s notification regarding the name changes.
In 2022, the Maharashtra cabinet, led by Chief Minister Eknath Shinde, approved the renaming of Aurangabad and Osmanabad. A government resolution was passed on July 16, 2022, and forwarded to the Union Government for approval. Subsequently, in February 2023, the Union Home Ministry granted a no objection letter for the name changes, following which the State Government issued a gazette notification formalising the renaming.
The decision faced opposition from residents of Aurangabad and Osmanabad, who filed petitions challenging the Government’s move. The petitioners argued that the renaming was politically motivated and violated the secular fabric of the nation, as enshrined in the Constitution. They also alleged that the authorities did not adequately consider objections and suggestions from the public before finalising the decision.
However, the Bombay High Court dismissed these petitions, stating that the government’s notifications were lawful and did not suffer from any legal defects. The court emphasised that the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code grants the state government the authority to rename revenue areas, and the decision-making process follows statutory provisions.
In its judgment, the court referenced Shakespeare’s famous quote from Romeo and Juliet, “What’s in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet,” to highlight the insignificance of names in altering the essence of places. The bench emphasised that the objections and suggestions to the name changes were duly considered before issuing the final notification.
The bench further noted that the power to name or rename areas lies within the purview of the state government, and judicial intervention is only warranted if the proposed name is deemed “atrocious.” It affirmed that the renaming of Aurangabad and Osmanabad was based on historical significance rather than political motives.
Lawyers representing the petitioners argued that the state authorities disregarded objections and suggestions from the public and imposed their decision without proper consultation. However, the state advocate general, Birendra Saraf, defended the Government’s stance, asserting that the renaming was rooted in historical context rather than political considerations.
While the petitions raised concerns about political motivations and procedural irregularities, the court concluded that the government’s actions were lawful and valid under the established legal framework.
