On Thursday, the Supreme Court denied a retired judge’s request to change the name of the Bombay High Court to the Maharashtra High Court. The Supreme Court said that the name change was a decision for Parliament to make.
Incidentally, the declaration was considered by a three-judge tribunal headed by former Chief Justice of India (CJI) SA Bobde on June 3, 2020, and was dismissed 29 months later, with the tribunal of Justices Aniruddha Bose and Vikram Nath determining that the petition was untenable at all.
The bank said, “How can we consider this sentence?” Let the legislators decide. What is the fundamental right that has been harmed and for which you have brought a case under Article 32?
A lawyer for retired judge VP Patil, Qurratulain, said that the petition was about freedom of expression, which includes expressing cultural identity.
The petitioner stated that the word “Maharashtra” has a special meaning for a person belonging to that state, as all Maharashtrians take pride in associating themselves with the dignity associated with the term “Maratha”.
The petition also said that Maharashtra’s cultural claim cannot be met unless public institutions, like the High Court, change their names to those of the state.
Qurratulain told the court that, pursuant to the notice, the Center had filed an affidavit, and the same should be considered.
The Center told the Court that such a request cannot be considered as it is a matter that belongs to the exclusive domain of Parliament.
The petitioner requested permission to transfer the petition as a representation to the Center, but the Court refused to approve any order on the grounds that the competent authority is the Parliament, which cannot be given any order to consider any representation.