The Supreme Court upheld the use of Urdu on Maharashtra municipal signboards, saying that Urdu is a language of the people and not connected to any religion. The Court added that there is no legal issue with using Urdu alongside Marathi.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court upheld the use of Urdu on the nameboard of a municipal council in Maharashtra. A Bench comprising Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and K. Vinod Chandran ruled that Urdu and Marathi hold equal status under the Constitution, dismissing claims that only Marathi should be used.
The court rejected a petition by Varshatai Sanjay Bagade, a former councillor from Patur town, who challenged the inclusion of Urdu on the Patur Municipal Council’s nameboard.
The justices expressed concern that Urdu, despite its Indian origins, has been wrongly associated with Muslims. They attributed this misconception to colonial powers that linked Hindi with Hindus and Urdu with Muslims.
The Court stated,
“This is not an occasion to have an elaborate discussion on the rise and fall of Urdu, but this much can be stated that this fusion of the two languages Hindi and Urdu met a roadblock in the form of the puritans on both sides and Hindi became more Sanskritized and Urdu more Persian. A schism exploited by the colonial powers in dividing the two languages on religion. Hindi was now understood to be the language of Hindus and Urdu of the Muslims, which is such a pitiable digression from reality; from unity in diversity; and the concept of universal brotherhood,”
The Court emphasized that Urdu has its roots in India and should not be tied to any specific religion.
The judgement noted,
“The prejudice against Urdu stems from the misconception that Urdu is alien to India. This opinion, we are afraid, is incorrect as Urdu, like Marathi and Hindi, is an Indo-Aryan language. It is a language which was born in this land. Urdu developed and flourished in India due to the need for people belonging to different cultural milieus who wanted to exchange ideas and communicate amongst themselves. Over the centuries, it attained ever greater refinement and became the language of choice for many acclaimed poets,”
Bagade argued that the use of Urdu was not allowed under the Maharashtra Local Authorities (Official Languages) Act, 2022. The Court disagreed, clarifying that there is no legal restriction on using Urdu alongside Marathi, and that her plea was based on a misunderstanding of both language and law.
The Court stated,
“There is no prohibition on the use of Urdu under the 2022 Act or in any provision of law…Marathi and Urdu occupy the same position under Schedule VIII of the Constitution of India,”
The Municipal Council had previously denied Bagade’s request in 2020, pointing out that Urdu had been used since 1956 and was well understood by the local community.
Also Read: Supreme Court Bar Association to Issue Communication in Vernacular Languages
Her challenge was dismissed by the Bombay High Court in 2021, leading her to appeal to the Supreme Court. The top court found that the Municipal Council had long employed Urdu for local signage and noted that the challenge was filed by a councillor rather than the Chief Officer, who alone had the authority to object under the Maharashtra Municipal Councils Act.
The Court maintained that the use of Urdu was a matter of accessibility and public communication, rather than a political or religious issue.
The judgement stated,
“Language is a medium for exchange of ideas that brings people holding diverse views and beliefs closer and it should not become a cause of their division…If people or a group of people, residing within the area covered by the Municipal Council are familiar with Urdu, then there should not be any objection if Urdu is used in addition to the official language i.e. Marathi, at least on the signboard of the Municipal Council,”
Addressing the broader claim that Urdu is a religious or foreign language, the Court reiterated that Urdu is fundamentally rooted in India.
The Court emphasized that language does not represent religion; rather, it belongs to a community, region, or people.
The judgement further asserted,
“Let our concepts be clear. 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. Language is culture. Language is the yardstick to measure the civilizational march of a community and its people. So is the case of Urdu, which is the finest specimen of ganga-jamuni tahzeeb, or the Hindustani tahzeeb, which is the composite cultural ethos of the plains of northern and central India. But before language became a tool for learning, its earliest and primary purpose will always remain communication,”
The Bench also acknowledged the deep integration of Urdu within the Indian legal framework.
“Urdu words have a heavy influence on Court parlance, both in criminal and civil law. From Adalat to halafnama to peshi, the influence of Urdu is writ large in the language of the Indian Courts.”
Ultimately, the Court dismissed the plea, concluding that the inclusion of Urdu alongside Marathi on the signboard did not violate any statutory or constitutional provisions. It called for a reevaluation of personal misconceptions or biases against languages through a genuine engagement with India’s linguistic diversity.
The Court concluded,
“Our misconceptions, perhaps even our prejudices against a language have to be courageously and truthfully tested against the reality, which is this great diversity of our nation: Our strength can never be our weakness. Let us make friends with Urdu and every language,”
Bagade represented by advocates Kunal Cheema, Satyajeetsingh Raghuwanshi, and Raghav Deshpande, while the respondents were represented by advocates Preet S. Phanse, Siddharth Dharmadhikari, and Aaditya Aniruddha Pande.
Case Title: Mrs. Varshatai W/o Sh. Sanjay Bagade vs. State Of Maharashtra
Read Attachment
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
