Bombay HC seeks State reply on Malegaon Tipu portrait plea

The Bombay High Court on Thursday (September 17, 2026) asked the Maharashtra government to reply to a petition by Malegaon Municipal Corporation Deputy Mayor Shaan e Hind Nihal Ahmed challenging police communications to remove a Tipu Sultan portrait from her office. The petition says portraits of several leaders, including Shivaji Maharaj, Gandhi and Bhagat Singh, are displayed there. A Bench of Chief Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Advait Sethna adjourned the matter.

Written by AI from The Hindu — National · not yet reviewed by an editor · Published 18 Sept 2026, 6:43 am IST

Source

The Hindu — National · read the original report ↗

#bombay high court#malegaon#tipu sultan#maharashtra government#court case

Desk check · compared with the source

What the desk checked (4)

Bombay HC on September 17, 2026 asked the Maharashtra government to reply to Malegaon Deputy Mayor Shaan e Hind Nihal Ahmed's petition against police communications to remove a Tipu Sultan portrait. — Attributed to court proceedings before Chief Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Advait Sethna; date and names appear in source.
The Deputy Mayor displayed portraits of several leaders including Shivaji Maharaj, Mahatma Gandhi, Rani Laxmibai, Tipu Sultan, Bhagat Singh and others in her office. — Stated in the petition as per the source; not independently established.
Shiv Sena (Eknath Shinde) Leader of the Opposition in the corporation, Nilesh Kakade, complained about the Tipu Sultan portrait. — Attributed to the petition; no response from Kakade in the source.
Counsel M.M. Vashi said cited circulars and Government Resolutions do not name Abdul Kalam Azad, Fatima Shaikh and Bhagat Singh, and that a Nashik court displays a Tipu Sultan portrait without action. — Attributed argument of petitioner's counsel; unverified assertion, State reply pending.

Written by AI from The Hindu — National · not yet reviewed by an editor · How we use AI · Report an error

Analysts’ view opinion

AI Political Analyst

The row over a single portrait in Malegaon is really a contest of political symbolism, where the stakes lie less in the legal outcome than in whose narrative prevails. By going to court, the Samajwadi Party Deputy Mayor has reframed what was an administrative instruction into a question of selective treatment — her petition notes that Tipu Sultan's portrait hung alongside those of Shivaji Maharaj, Gandhi, Bhagat Singh and Ambedkar, yet objection was raised to only one. With the High Court seeking the State's reply, the burden now shifts to the government to show a clear rule-based basis for the action.

That the complaint came from the Opposition Shiv Sena (Eknath Shinde) leader in the corporation, and the instruction from the police, shows how local civic rivalry can travel up through the State machinery.
The petitioner's strategy is shrewd: rather than fighting on communal terrain, she anchors the case in a 1965 circular and Government Resolutions and makes it a question of equal treatment.
The argument that a Tipu Sultan portrait also hangs in the Nashik court without any action strengthens the political charge of selective enforcement.
In a constituency like Malegaon, such a dispute can raise the Samajwadi Party's profile among its voters, while equally giving the rival camp a platform to signal to its own base.
The State government faces a delicate choice — holding firm invites accusations of discrimination, while backing off risks disappointing its own supporters.

What to watch — Watch whether the State's affidavit cites a specific rule-based justification or whether the police communication is quietly withdrawn — that choice will set the political direction of this dispute.

The story establishes nothing about the intent behind the police communication, the government's defence or the court's view, since only the petitioner's arguments are so far on record.

Deep dive

Research brief · 8 facts · 5 dates · exam-ready

The brief

Context

The Deputy Mayor of Malegaon Municipal Corporation, Shaan e Hind Nihal Ahmed of the Samajwadi Party, has challenged communications from the Maharashtra Police directing her to remove a portrait of Tipu Sultan from her office in the corporation building. Her office displays portraits of a range of national figures, and she argues that only the Tipu Sultan portrait has been objected to. The objection followed a complaint by the Leader of the Opposition in the corporation, Nilesh Kakade of the Shiv Sena (Eknath Shinde). The Bombay High Court has now asked the Maharashtra government to file its reply.

Key facts

On September 17, 2026, the Bombay High Court asked the Maharashtra government to file a reply to the petition.
The petitioner is Shaan e Hind Nihal Ahmed, Deputy Mayor of Malegaon Municipal Corporation, of the Samajwadi Party.
The petition challenges communications from the Maharashtra Police to remove a Tipu Sultan portrait from her office.
The Bench comprised Chief Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Advait Sethna, which adjourned the matter.
Portraits displayed in her office include Shivaji Maharaj, Mahatma Gandhi, Rani Laxmibai, Tipu Sultan, Subhash Chandra Bose, Fatima Shaikh, Savitribai Phule, Babasaheb Ambedkar, Abdul Kalam Azad, Bhagat Singh, Jyotiba Phule and Shahu Maharaj.
Nilesh Kakade, Leader of the Opposition of Shiv Sena (Eknath Shinde) in the Malegaon Municipal Corporation, complained about the Tipu Sultan portrait.
The petition relies on a circular from September 1965 and Government Resolutions allowing portraits of leaders of the country in government premises.
Counsel M.M. Vashi argued that the cited circulars and Government Resolutions do not name Abdul Kalam Azad, Fatima Shaikh or Bhagat Singh, and that a court in Nashik displays a Tipu Sultan portrait with no action taken.

Timeline

September 1965A circular (cited in the petition), along with Government Resolutions, permits display of portraits of leaders of the country in government premises.
Date not stated in the sourceNilesh Kakade, Leader of the Opposition in Malegaon Municipal Corporation, complains about the Tipu Sultan portrait in the corporation office building.
Date not stated in the sourceMaharashtra Police send communications seeking removal of the Tipu Sultan portrait from the Deputy Mayor's office.
September 17, 2026Bombay High Court Bench of CJ Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Advait Sethna hears the plea, adjourns it and grants the State time to reply.
September 18, 2026The report of the hearing is published.

Who has a stake

Shaan e Hind Nihal Ahmed (Deputy Mayor, Malegaon Municipal Corporation, Samajwadi Party) — Petitioner; seeks to retain the Tipu Sultan portrait among other leaders' portraits in her official chamber.
Maharashtra government / Maharashtra Police — Respondents; must justify the communications ordering removal and file a reply in the High Court.
Bombay High Court (CJ Mahesh Chandra Tripathi, Justice Advait Sethna) — Must decide whether the removal directive is consistent with the 1965 circular and Government Resolutions.
Nilesh Kakade, Leader of the Opposition, Shiv Sena (Eknath Shinde), Malegaon Municipal Corporation — Complainant against the display of the Tipu Sultan portrait in the corporation building.
Malegaon Municipal Corporation — The dispute concerns portraits displayed inside its office building, affecting its internal functioning.

Why it matters

The case turns a local dispute over a portrait into a legal question about whether the State can selectively bar one historical figure from official premises when rules broadly permit portraits of national leaders. It also tests uniformity of enforcement, since the petitioner points to a Tipu Sultan portrait in a Nashik court where no action was taken. The outcome will shape how administrative circulars on official symbolism are applied by police and civic bodies.

UPSC angle

Prelims pointers

Bombay High Court Bench in the case: Chief Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Advait Sethna.
Petitioner: Shaan e Hind Nihal Ahmed, Deputy Mayor, Malegaon Municipal Corporation, Samajwadi Party.
Petition cites a circular of September 1965 and Government Resolutions permitting portraits of national leaders in government premises.
Complaint was made by Nilesh Kakade, Leader of the Opposition, Shiv Sena (Eknath Shinde), in the Malegaon Municipal Corporation.
Hearing date: September 17, 2026; the State was granted time to file its reply.
Counsel for the petitioner: M.M. Vashi.

Mains framing

The Malegaon portrait dispute illustrates how contested historical memory intersects with administrative discretion in India's public institutions. The petitioner's office displays portraits spanning Shivaji Maharaj, Mahatma Gandhi, Savitribai Phule, Ambedkar, Bhagat Singh and Tipu Sultan, yet police communications, prompted by an Opposition leader's complaint, target only Tipu Sultan; her counsel argues that the September 1965 circular and Government Resolutions relied upon by the State do not themselves name several of the figures displayed, and that a court in Nashik retains a similar portrait without objection. The core issues are therefore the legal basis and clarity of the rules governing display of portraits in government premises, the risk of selective or arbitrary enforcement by executive authorities, and the role of the judiciary in requiring reasoned, uniform administrative action. A way forward, consistent with what the source discloses, lies in the State placing on record the exact circulars and resolutions it relies on so that the High Court can test whether the direction to remove one portrait is supported by rule and applied evenly; the case remains pending with the State yet to file its reply.

Key terms

Malegaon Municipal Corporation: The urban local body in Maharashtra whose office building houses the Deputy Mayor's chamber at the centre of the dispute.
Government Resolution (GR): A formal executive order/decision of a State government; here cited on display of leaders' portraits in government premises.
Circular of September 1965: The administrative circular cited in the petition permitting portraits of leaders of the country in government premises.
Deputy Mayor: Elected office-bearer of a municipal corporation, second to the Mayor; here held by Shaan e Hind Nihal Ahmed.
Leader of the Opposition (civic body): Head of the largest opposition group in a municipal corporation; here Nilesh Kakade of Shiv Sena (Eknath Shinde).
Tipu Sultan: Historical ruler whose portrait in the Deputy Mayor's office is the sole subject of the removal communications.

Practice questions

Do administrative circulars on the display of portraits in government premises confer unguided discretion on the executive? Discuss with reference to the Malegaon Tipu Sultan portrait case.
Examine the concerns of selective enforcement raised when the State objects to only one among many portraits displayed in a public office.
What role do constitutional courts play in ensuring uniformity and reasoned decision-making in administrative directions issued by police to elected civic functionaries?

Grounded only in the source report — figures and dates are the source's, not inferred.

Next storyProgrammes, prayers across India mark PM Modi's 76th birthday →

← All stories