Nashik: Tipu Sultan Portrait Row Reaches Bombay HC, State Govt Asked To Respond

Nashik: The controversy over the portrait of Tipu Sultan displayed in the office of Malegaon Municipal Corporation Deputy Mayor Shan-e-Hind Nihal Ahmed has now reached the Bombay High Court. The Deputy Mayor has challenged the directions issued by the municipal administration and police seeking removal of the portrait.

Taking cognisance of the petition, the Bombay High Court has issued a notice to the Maharashtra Government seeking its response.

The portrait was displayed along with those of several historical and national figures, including Mahatma Gandhi, Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj, Rani Lakshmibai, Subhas Chandra Bose, Dr B.R. Ambedkar, Savitribai Phule, Mahatma Jyotirao Phule, Shaheed Bhagat Singh and Rajarshi Shahu Maharaj. An objection was raised by Malegaon Municipal Corporation Opposition Leader Nilesh Kakade, following which correspondence was initiated by the civic administration and police regarding the removal of Tipu Sultan's portrait.

The authorities have reportedly relied on a 1965 circular and government resolutions issued in 2002 concerning the display of portraits of national leaders in government offices. During the hearing, the petitioner's advocate questioned why an objection was being raised specifically against Tipu Sultan's portrait when portraits of other historical personalities are displayed in public and government premises.

The petitioner has also referred to the original artistic version of the Constitution of India, claiming that it contains an illustration associated with Tipu Sultan. The petition further refers to the presence of Tipu Sultan's portrait at certain other public institutions, including the Nashik District Court, to argue that the action against the portrait in the Deputy Mayor's office requires judicial scrutiny.

The State Government opposed the petition. However, a bench comprising Chief Justice Maheshchandra Tripathi and Justice Adwait Sethna directed the State Government to file its response. The matter is scheduled to be heard again after three weeks.