New Delhi, May 19 ; The Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to entertain a plea seeking a direction to the Centre to take a time-bound decision on the Maharashtra government’s proposal regarding the renaming of the Navi Mumbai International Airport.
The Maharashtra government had forwarded a proposal to rename the Navi Mumbai International Airport as ‘Lokneta D B Patil Navi Mumbai International Airport’.
“This will amount to indulging in policy making,” a bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi told the counsel appearing for the petitioner organisation ‘Prakashjhot Samajik Sanstha’.
The bench said it was not inclined to entertain the plea challenging a November 2025 order of the Bombay High Court, which had dismissed the petition.
The bench granted liberty to the petitioner to pursue the case before the competent authority.
“Is it the function of the court that what should be the name of an airport?” the bench observed during the hearing.
The counsel appearing for the petitioner said there was a demand to rename the airport in the name of D B Patil.
The counsel said the state government had send a proposal to the Centre for renaming the airport but nothing has been done yet.
“Let the state government pursue it. In a democratic set up, you have certain rights and you can pursue them. You know it very well,” the bench observed.
When the counsel said people were protesting on the roads seeking to rename the airport, the bench observed that everyone has a right to do peaceful protest which is permissible in law but they should not create problems for other people.
While dealing with the plea, the high court had noted that a writ court exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution shall have no powers to issue a direction to the Ministry of Civil Aviation to accept the proposal moved by the Maharashtra government.
“As understood in legal parlance, a proposal is only an expression of intention and a decision thereon can be taken as per the rules, regulations and statutory provisions,” the high court had said, while dismissing the public interest litigation.
