Back
Can Police Force Removal of Tipu Sultan Portrait? Seeks Maharashtra Govt Reply
The on Wednesday directed the to file its response to a petition filed by the Deputy Mayor of , challenging police communications that demanded the removal of a portrait of Tipu Sultan from her office. A division bench of Chief Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Advait Sethna observed that the objection appeared selective, given that portraits of numerous other national leaders were also displayed in the same office.
The petitioner, Shaan-e-Hind Nihal Ahmed, a 41-year-old leader, has displayed photographs of 12 personalities in her official chamber: Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj, Mahatma Gandhi, Rani Laxmibai, Tipu Sultan, Subhash Chandra Bose, Savitribai Phule, Fatima Sheikh, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, Bhagat Singh, Jyotiba Phule, and Shahu Maharaj. The controversy erupted after the Leader of Opposition in the MMC, Nilesh Kakade of the , objected specifically to the portrait of Tipu Sultan. The police then issued communications citing a circular from , which reportedly restricts the display of portraits in official premises to only those of national leaders.
Petition Highlights
Senior advocate , representing Ahmed, argued before the court that the 1965 circular and subsequent government resolutions do not even name several of the leaders whose portraits are on display—including Bhagat Singh, Fatima Sheikh, and Maulana Abul Kalam Azad. “Yet they are only objecting to the portrait of Tipu Sultan. I have no agenda or motive here,” Vashi submitted. He further pointed out that the has a portrait of Tipu Sultan without any similar action being taken. “Why is the objection only to my office?” he questioned.
Vashi contended that the police communications could not be treated as and that the claim of hurt sentiments was being applied selectively. He emphasised that the petitioner’s display was not a political statement but a tribute to historical figures, and that no law prohibits the depiction of Tipu Sultan in a municipal office.
Assistant Government Pleader opposed the petition, arguing that the circular was a valid and that the display of Tipu Sultan’s portrait could disturb in the region. However, the bench was not persuaded and ordered the state to file a detailed reply within three weeks, adjourning the matter for further hearing.
Legal Implications: Freedom of Expression and Government Directives
The case raises significant under , which guarantees the right to . While this right is not absolute and can be subjected to under on grounds such as , decency, or morality, the central issue here is whether a police directive based on a decades-old circular can override an elected official’s choice to display portraits in her own office.
The of the circular—targeting Tipu Sultan while ignoring other leaders not listed in the same document—may also implicate , which guarantees . If the state cannot provide a rational basis for distinguishing between the portraits, the directive could be struck down as . Additionally, the reliance on a 1965 circular raises questions about its continued relevance and whether it has been formally adopted or updated to reflect modern administrative practices.
Legal experts note that this case is not merely about a historical figure but about the extent to which the executive can dictate the aesthetic and symbolic choices of public officials in their workspace. The outcome could set a precedent for how government circulars are applied in the context of official premises, particularly when they intersect with political or cultural sensitivities.
Impact on Public Officials and Administrative Law
For legal practitioners, the case underscores the importance of challenging executive actions that lack clear statutory backing. The petition argues that police communications are not legislative instruments and cannot be enforced as binding rules without proper authority. If the High Court finds the directive to be , it may reinforce the principle that administrative instructions must be consistent with .
Moreover, the matter highlights the vulnerability of elected representatives to political pressure through police interventions. The deputy mayor’s position is that her office is a space for inclusive representation of India’s diverse history, and that no single figure should be singled out for removal based on partisan objections. This could encourage other public officials to resist similar directives, leading to a broader debate on the role of historical symbols in government spaces.
Conclusion
As the awaits the ’s reply, the legal community will watch closely to see how the balance is struck between and . The case also serves as a reminder that even seemingly minor disputes over portraits can engage and require judicial scrutiny. The next hearing is expected in three weeks, after the state files its response.
