The Gujarat High Court, for the time being, has rested the controversy over the proposed change of the city's name from Ahmedabad to Karnavati and disposed of public interest litigation (PIL) seeking the court's intervention in restraining the government from doing so.

The division bench of Acting Chief Justice AS Dave and Justice Biren Vaishnav asked advocate Hetvi Sancheti, who filed the petition, to pursue her representation pending before the government against the name change. However, the bench gave her the liberty to approach the court again in the future, if the need arises. Notably, Sancheti had filed the petition in November last year when the debate over the city's name change was at its peak. However, after facing severe criticism, the government then put the proposal on the backburner and the issue lost its relevance.

Sancheti had appealed before the court to direct the state, Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation, and the Union government, to recognise the name 'Ahmedabad' as "Intangible cultural heritage" and frame policies for safeguarding the same as per Article 11 and 13 of the Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage (CICH), 2003, of which India is a signatory. Also, it was the petitioner's demand that the authorities should be directed not to change the city's name.

She had claimed that the issue of name change had cropped up time and again in the past and the only permanent solution to the problem was to declare the name 'Ahmedabad' as an "Intangible Cultural Heritage" and frame policies for safeguarding the same.

The advocate had also argued that the change of name will also affect the city's heritage tag granted by UNESCO. It was submitted that the historical evidence as published by the state government and submitted to the UNESCO clearly mentions that the city of Ahmedabad was founded by Sultan Ahmed Shah and the name 'Karnavati' is reflected nowhere. The advocate also claimed that there were no domestic laws or policies in place for safeguarding intangible cultural heritage.

The petitioner had submitted that no historical data warrants such a name change and it was being done as a means of "divisive vote bank politics" by the government before the Lok Sabha polls.

POLL EFFECT