‘Right To Protest Doesn’t Mean Creating Problems’: SC On Navi Mumbai Airport Renaming Plea

The Supreme Court refused to hear a plea on renaming Navi Mumbai airport, saying deciding an airport’s name falls within policy-making.

The court further questioned whether deciding the name of an airport was even a judicial function.

Source : PTI

Show Quick Read

Key points generated by AI, verified by newsroom

• Supreme Court declines to decide airport renaming, deems it policy matter.
• Bench states courts cannot dictate airport names or policy decisions.
• Petitioner urged to pursue Navi Mumbai airport name through authorities.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to entertain a plea seeking directions to the Centre to take a time-bound decision on the Maharashtra government’s proposal to rename the Navi Mumbai International Airport after Lokneta D B Patil. The top court observed that deciding the name of an airport falls within the domain of policy-making and not judicial intervention. A bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant said courts cannot dictate what an airport should be called, while granting liberty to the petitioner organisation to pursue the matter before the competent authority through appropriate democratic channels.

Court Refuses Plea

A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi dismissed the plea filed by petitioner organisation Prakashjhot Samajik Sanstha. The petition had challenged a November 2025 Bombay High Court order rejecting a similar request.

During the hearing, the bench remarked that entertaining such a plea would amount to “indulging in policy making”. The court further questioned whether deciding the name of an airport was even a judicial function.

The petitioner’s counsel argued that there had been a long-standing demand to rename the Navi Mumbai International Airport as ‘Lokneta D B Patil Navi Mumbai International Airport’. It was submitted that the Maharashtra government had already forwarded a proposal to the Centre, but no decision had been taken so far.

Bench Makes Observations

Responding to the submissions, the bench said the state government itself should pursue the matter with the Centre. “In a democratic set up, you have certain rights and you can pursue them,” the bench observed.

When the petitioner referred to ongoing protests demanding the renaming, the court said peaceful protests were permissible under the law, provided they did not inconvenience others.

The Bombay High Court, while dismissing the earlier plea, had also ruled that courts exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot direct the Ministry of Civil Aviation to accept a proposal moved by a state government. The high court had clarified that a proposal merely reflects an intention and any final decision must be taken in accordance with existing rules, regulations and statutory provisions.