“Language Is Not Religion" : Supreme Court Upholds Urdu on Signboard, Says ‘Let Us Make Friends with Every Language’
Sanchayita Lahkar
The Supreme Court of India, Division Bench comprising Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice K. Vinod Chandran, stated that the display of Urdu on a Municipal Council signboard alongside Marathi does not violate the Maharashtra Local Authorities (Official Languages) Act, 2022. The judgment concludes the prolonged litigation pursued by a former municipal council member challenging the display of Urdu on public signage.
The Court stated: "The display of an additional language cannot, by itself, be said to be in violation of the provisions of the 2022 Act" and dismissed the appeals, noting that "the entire case of the appellant to our mind is based on a misconception of law."
The appellant, Mrs. Varshatai w/o Sh. Sanjay Bagade, a former member of the Municipal Council, Patur, objected to the use of Urdu alongside Marathi on the council's signboard in Akola district, Maharashtra. The signboard displayed the name "Municipal Council, Patur" in Marathi at the top and in Urdu below.
According to the appellant, official work in municipal bodies must be conducted exclusively in Marathi, asserting that even the use of Urdu for signage was impermissible under official language provisions. The Municipal Council, however, through a majority resolution dated 14.02.2020, upheld the inclusion of Urdu, citing historical precedent and the linguistic makeup of the local population.
It was stated that Urdu had featured on the signboard since the establishment of the Municipal Council in 1956. The resolution acknowledged that many council members and residents were conversant with Urdu.
Unconvinced, the appellant approached the Collector, Akola, under Section 308 of the Maharashtra Municipal Council, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Township Act, 1965. On 15.12.2020, the Collector cited in her favour, directing the exclusive use of Marathi in official signage.
Challenging the Collector's decision, several Council members filed a revision before the Divisional Commissioner, Amravati under Section 318 of the same Act. The Commissioner set aside the Collector's order on 30.04.2021.
This led to Writ Petition No. 2219 of 2021 in the Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench), wherein the appellant reiterated that Marathi, being the official language of Maharashtra, must be used exclusively. The High Court dismissed the petition, observing:
"There cannot be any dispute about the fact that as per entry No.22 of the VIIIth Schedule of the Constitution of India, Urdu is very much included in the list of languages. Thus, this Court sees no reason to entertain the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner."
Subsequently, the matter was brought to the Supreme Court through Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 13820 of 2021. During its pendency, the Maharashtra Local Authorities (Official Languages) Act, 2022 came into force. This Act mandates the use of Marathi for public communication by local authorities.
The Court observed in its interim order dated 29.04.2022:
"Since the Act has come into force during the pendency of the present proceedings, we find that the order of the High Court on account of subsequent development is not sustainable. However, it shall be open to the aggrieved person to seek recourse to the remedy as may be available to him against the impugned Act in accordance with law."
Following this, the Bombay High Court reconsidered the matter and delivered a fresh decision on 10.04.2024. It stated that the 2022 Act does not prohibit the use of an additional language on signage, as long as Marathi is used:
"We are herewith concerned with the display of the name of the Municipal Council on its building, which in addition to Marathi, has also been written in Urdu script... the use of an additional language to display the name of Municipal Council on its building would not indicate any violation of the provisions of the Act of 2022."
The Supreme Court, while affirming the High Court's reasoning, devoted considerable discussion to the constitutional and cultural dimensions of language use in India.
The Court recorded: "Language is not religion. Language does not even represent religion. Language belongs to a community, to a region, to people; and not to a religion." It further elaborated on the historical and constitutional position of Urdu and other Indian languages:
"Marathi and Urdu occupy the same position under Schedule VIII of the Constitution of India."
The Court referenced the constitutional powers under Article 345 allowing state legislatures to adopt any language in use in the State as official language(s), noting the precedent set by the decision in Uttar Pradesh Hindi Sahitya Sammelan v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2014) 9 SCC 716.
It recounted the language debates from the Constituent Assembly and the independence movement, invoking writings by leaders including Jawaharlal Nehru and Mahatma Gandhi on the inclusive nature of Hindustani.
The Court also remarked on the linguistic integration of Urdu in everyday Indian and legal discourse:
"Even though the official language of the Supreme Court and the High Courts as per Article 348 of the Constitution is English, yet many Urdu words continue to be used in this Court till date."
In a concluding reflection, the Court invoked the poem of Iqbal Ashhar, quoting:
“urdu hai mirā naam maiñ 'Khusrav' kī pahelī kyuuñ mujh ko banāte ho ta.assub kā nishānamaiñ ne to kabhī ḳhud ko musalmāñ nahīñ maanā dekhā thā kabhī maiñ ne bhī ḳhushiyoñ kā zamāna, apne hī vatan meñ huuñ magar aaj akelī, urdu hai mirā naam maiñ 'Khusrav' kī pahelī”
The Court upheld the Bombay High Court’s decision, stating:
"We completely agree with the reasoning given by the High Court that there is no prohibition on the use of Urdu under the 2022 Act or in any provision of law. The entire case of the appellant to our mind is based on a misconception of law. We see no reason therefore to interfere in the present case. These appeals are liable to be dismissed, and are hereby dismissed."
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioners: Mr. Kunal Cheema, Advocate-on-Record; Mr. Satyajeetsingh Raghuwanshi, Advocate; Mr. Raghav Deshpande, Advocate
For the Respondents: Ms. Preet S. Phanse, Advocate; Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Advocate; Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, Advocate-on-Record
Case Title: VARSHATAI vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 486
Case Number: Civil Appeal No(s). of 2025 / SLP (C) No(s). of 2025 / Diary No. 24812 of 2024
Bench: Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, Justice K. Vinod Chandran
[Read/Download order]
