The petitioners contended that the renaming process was flawed and did not adhere to proper legal and administrative procedures.
Team Clarion
NEW DELHI — The Supreme Court on Friday upheld the Bombay High Court’s decision to reject petitions challenging the Maharashtra government’s renaming the historic cities of Aurangabad and Osmanabad. The apex court ruling brings to a close a contentious debate that has seen significant political and public interest.
Aurangabad, a city with deep historical roots in the Marathwada region, and Osmanabad, another significant district, have long been at the centre of political discourse. Hindu organisations and pro-Hindu political parties have pushed for renaming Aurangabad to Chhatrapati Sambhaji Nagar and Osmanabad to Dharashiv.
The state government officially changed the names through a notification, which was subsequently challenged in the courts. The petitioners argued that the name changes were politically motivated and did not reflect the will of all residents. They sought to overturn the notification issued by the Maharashtra government.
A bench comprising Justices Rishikesh Roy and SVN Bhatti heard the case. The petitioners contended that the renaming process was flawed and did not adhere to proper legal and administrative procedures. They also argued that the name changes could erase significant parts of the cities’ histories.
The Supreme Court, however, dismissed these petitions. The bench upheld the Bombay High Court’s earlier decision, stating that the state government had followed due procedure as per the law before effecting the name changes. The court recognised the potential for differing opinions on such matters but noted that such differences do not undermine the legality of the name change process.
Justice Rishikesh Roy stated, “In such cases, there will be differences of opinion among different people; some will agree with the change of names of cities while others will disagree.” The bench emphasised that the notification issued by the state was valid and that the procedure followed was logical and lawful.
In its May ruling, the Bombay High Court had dismissed the petitions challenging the name changes. It cited the example from Shakespeare’s “Romeo and Juliet” – “What’s in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet” – to illustrate that the essence and identity of the cities remain unchanged despite their new names.
The Supreme Court’s decision has been met with varied reactions. Proponents of the name changes, particularly those from Hindu organisations and aligned political parties, have welcomed the ruling as a victory for cultural recognition and historical rectification. They argue that the new names honour the legacy of Chhatrapati Sambhaji Maharaj and the historical significance of Dharashiv.
Conversely, opponents, including some residents and cultural historians, have expressed disappointment. They argue that the name changes are a form of historical revisionism that neglects the cities’ multifaceted pasts. Critics also fear that such changes might set a precedent for politically motivated renaming of other places, potentially leading to cultural and communal discord.
Aurangabad was named after the Mughal emperor Aurangzeb and has been an important cultural and historical centre, known for its UNESCO World Heritage sites like the Ajanta and Ellora Caves.
Osmanabad, named after the last Nizam of Hyderabad, has similarly been a centre of historical significance. The change to Dharashiv references an ancient name that proponents claim is more reflective of the region’s historical roots.
The Supreme Court’s ruling underscores the complexity and sensitivity involved in renaming historical places. While the court’s decision legally validates the state government’s actions, the broader cultural and political implications will continue to be debated. The ruling highlights the delicate balance between preserving historical legacies and recognising contemporary cultural identities.
