38.6c New Delhi, India, Thursday, May 23, 2024

PIL Filed in SC to Change Name of High Court of Bombay to ‘High Court Of Maharashtra’ [READ PETITION]

By Parth Thummar      29 May, 2020 04:57 PM      0 Comments
High Court of Bombay to High Court Of Maharashtra

A petitioner named V.P. Patil recently filed a Public Interest Litigation on May 28, 2020, in the Supreme Court on May 28, 2020, urging it to issue a writ, order or a direction of like nature against the Respondents to rename High Court of Bombay to High Court of Maharashtra in pursuance of Articles 14, 19, 21 and 29 of the Constitution of India.

His main contention was that when several States in the Country have High Courts named after the State, the State of Maharashtra is being denied the same. 

The Petitioner has stated in his petition that he was filing the PIL invoking writ jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Art. 32 and not in the High Court under Art. 226 to maintain uniformity in the law laid down on the issue as the issue of renaming the High Court can effect several High Courts in different parts of the Country.

As a matter of fact, in 1861, the Indian High Court Act, 1861 was passed by the British Parliament for establishing High Courts in pre-independence India and the High Courts of Bombay, Calcutta and Madras was established in pursuance of Letters Patent issued by the Queen in terms of the Indian High Courts Act, 1861.

The petitioner claimed that the PIL was filed in Public Interest on behalf of a large number of people living and belonging to the State of Maharashtra who take immense pride in their Marathi culture and heritage and are seeking renaming of “High Court of Bombay” to “High Court of Maharashtra”. He also claimed that the sentiments/ grievances of the vast number of Maharashtrians, who could not approach or did not have means to approach the Apex Court were being represented through this petition.

He further stated that “expression of regional and geographical identity forms part of freedom of speech and expression as guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution of India and thus an expression of the word Maharashtra while referring to the High Court pertaining to the State amounts to the fundamental right of the Petitioner.”

He claimed that the “Expression” used under Article 19 of the Constitution of India includes within its ambit expression of “Identity” as well and thus protection is guaranteed also to cultural, social, and political identity.  

Basing another argument on Article 21 of the Constitution of India, he claims in the petition that the right to life includes the right to live with dignity and to enjoy life with the identity one associates oneself with. Hence, the assertion of a Maharashtrian/Maratha is taking pride and associating dignity to the concept of Maratha/Maharashtra and thus usage of the word “Maharashtra” while referring to the Hon’ble High Court is yet another means to fructify the dignity of a Maharashtrian. 

He also mentioned the fact that the Bombay Re-organization Act, 1960, under Section 88 empowers the appropriate Government to make such adaptations and modifications of the law, for facilitating the application of any law in relation to the State of Maharashtra. The Government of Maharashtra had issued Maharashtra Adaptation of Laws (State and Concurrent Subjects) Order, 1960, which came into effect on the 1st day of May 1960 and remains unchanged/ unmodified till date. Clause 4(1) of the said order substitutes the phrase “High Court of Bombay” to “High Court of Maharashtra”. But he claimed that it was not altered to date. 

In the end, he claimed that the change of name is a fundamental right of the Citizens of Maharashtra and in absence of legislative step, the Apex Court could step in and fill the vacuum in law. 



Share this article:

Leave a feedback about this

Trending Business
No interim relief to Forest Essentials in trademark fight against Baby Forest in Delhi HC

Delhi HC denies interim relief to Forest Essentials in trademark case against Baby Forest, citing "forest" as generic. Next hearing on July 10.

22 May, 2024 11:35 AM
Trending Business
Singapore Airlines flight SQ321 from London to Singapore drops 6000 ft within minutes, 1 dead, several injured

Singapore Airlines flight SQ321 from London to Singapore suffers 1 fatality after air dropping 6000 ft due to severe turbulence.

22 May, 2024 11:53 AM


Trending Judiciary
ED to seek court nod for custody of accused, if not arrested till cognisance of complaint: SC [Read Judgment]

The Supreme Court ruled that the Enforcement Directorate must seek court approval for custody of an accused if not arrested before the court takes cognizance of a complaint.

17 May, 2024 01:38 PM
Trending Judiciary
Fundamental right to health includes consumers' right to be made aware of quality of products: SC [Read Order]

Right to health includes consumers' right to know product quality. Advertisers must submit self-declarations for ads to ensure transparency and accountability: SC

17 May, 2024 01:43 PM
Trending Judiciary
SC asks ED to file response to Soren's plea for interim on May 20

SC asks ED to file a response by May 20 to Hemant Soren's plea for interim bail during Lok Sabha elections, with a hearing scheduled for May 21.

17 May, 2024 06:12 PM
Trending Judiciary
SC notice to EC on plea by ADR for release of voters turnout data

SC issues notice to EC on ADR plea to release voter turnout data. SC demands EC to disclose vote counts within 48 hours after each phase of the 2024 Lok Sabha polls.

18 May, 2024 11:16 AM


Join Group

Signup for Our Newsletter

Get Exclusive access to members only content by email