In a landmark judgment affirming linguistic equality, the Supreme Court upheld the use of Urdu alongside Marathi on municipal signboards in Maharashtra.
NEW DELHI: In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld the inclusion of Urdu on the nameboard of the Municipal Council of Patur in Maharashtra, stating that both Urdu and Marathi hold equal constitutional status.
A Bench comprising Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and K Vinod Chandran dismissed a petition filed by former councillor Varshatai Sanjay Bagade, who had challenged the presence of Urdu on the signage. The Court found no merit in the argument that only Marathi should be used.
Critically, the Court addressed the misconception surrounding the association of Urdu with any particular religion. It lamented that the language, despite having Indian origins, had erroneously come to be linked exclusively with Muslims—an association the Court attributed to colonial manipulation.
“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 Bench noted.
WHAT IS PART XVII AND ARTICLE 345-351 OF THE CONSTITUTION
“Part XVII” of the Constitution of India, titled “Official Language”, governs the language policy of both the Union and the States, comprising Articles 343 to 351. It provides the constitutional basis for the use of Hindi, English, and other regional languages in official communication, legislation, and administration.
A key provision within this Part is Article 345, which empowers the Legislature of a State to adopt Hindi or any other language in use in that State as the official language for all or any official purposes. It reads:
“345. Official language or languages of a State.—
Subject to the provisions of articles 346 and 347, the Legislature of a State may by law adopt any one or more of the languages in use in the State or Hindi as the language or languages to be used for all or any of the official purposes of that State:
Provided that, until the Legislature of the State otherwise provides by law, the English language shall continue to be used for those official purposes within the State for which it was being used immediately before the commencement of this Constitution.”
This provision grants States the flexibility to adopt language(s) most suited to their sociolinguistic realities. It balances the need for administrative convenience with the constitutional recognition of India’s linguistic diversity. Importantly, the proviso ensures the continued use of English until a State legislature decides otherwise, thus creating a transitional linguistic mechanism post-independence.
Article 351 complements this framework by placing a duty upon the Union to promote and develop the Hindi language. It states:
“351. Directive for development of the Hindi language.—
It shall be the duty of the Union to promote the spread of the Hindi language, to develop it so that it may serve as a medium of expression for all the elements of the composite culture of India and to secure its enrichment by assimilating without interfering with its genius, the forms, style and expressions used in Hindustani and in the other languages of India specified in the Eighth Schedule, and by drawing, wherever necessary or desirable, for its vocabulary, primarily on Sanskrit and secondarily on other languages.”
This provision is aspirational in nature and seeks to develop Hindi as a common linguistic thread across the nation, while drawing from other languages including those listed in the Eighth Schedule. The emphasis is on “linguistic synthesis”, respecting the genius of the language and fostering inclusivity rather than imposing homogeneity.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court Crucial Hearing Today (April 16) on CEC, EC Appointments Under 2023 Law
The Precedent: Uttar Pradesh Hindi Sahitya Sammelan v. State of Uttar Pradesh
The constitutional position under Article 345 was examined by a Constitution Bench in “Uttar Pradesh Hindi Sahitya Sammelan v. State of Uttar Pradesh” (2014) 9 SCC 716. The case arose when the 1951 Uttar Pradesh Official Languages Act was amended in 1989 to include Urdu as the second official language
“for such purposes as may be notified by the State Government from time to time.”
The amendment was challenged as unconstitutional. While a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court delivered a split verdict, the matter was referred to a third judge who upheld the amendment. This decision was subsequently affirmed by the Supreme Court, which held that the 1989 amendment did not suffer from any constitutional infirmity.
The Court ruled that the State Legislature acted within the scope of Article 345 by adopting Urdu, a language “in use in the State”, for official purposes. It reiterated that the power conferred on the State includes the discretion to adopt “more than one official language”, as long as such languages are demonstrably in use. The judgment reflected a broader commitment to inclusivity and linguistic pluralism, aligning with the “federal spirit of the Constitution.”
Taken together, Articles 345 and 351 showcase the Indian Constitution’s nuanced approach to language policy—one that fosters the development of Hindi as a national language without compromising the cultural and linguistic identities of individual States. The jurisprudence affirms that official language decisions must be rooted in “constitutional permissibility”, “local relevance”, and “administrative practicality.”
Emphasizing that Urdu, like Marathi and Hindi, is an Indo-Aryan language that originated and flourished in India, the Court stated:
“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 had contended that
“the use of Urdu violated the Maharashtra Local Authorities (Official Languages) Act, 2022. The Supreme Court disagreed, ruling that there was no statutory bar against using Urdu in addition to Marathi and that the challenge was rooted in a flawed interpretation of both language policy and the law“
“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 Court clarified.
LANGUAGE AS A TOOL FOR COMMUNICATION
Para 19 of the Judgement starts with
“Language is culture. Language is the yardstick to measure the civilizational march of a community and its people.”
These words underscore the deep relationship between language and the heritage of a people. Urdu, in this context, is described as
“the finest specimen of ganga-jamuni tahzeeb,”
also known as the Hindustani tahzeeb—a term that denotes the harmonious cultural blend characteristic of northern and central India.
The paragraph reminds us that while language can carry immense cultural significance, its most fundamental role remains unchanged:
“Before language became a tool for learning, its earliest and primary purpose will always remain communication.”
The municipal council’s use of Urdu, therefore, is not symbolic of any exclusivist cultural assertion but is simply aimed at reaching citizens effectively in a language they understand.
Paragraph 20 of the Judgement states ,
“The purpose here for the use of Urdu is merely communication,”
highlights the practical need to speak to the community in a familiar tongue.
“All the municipal council wanted to do was to make an effective communication.”
This reflects the essence of language use in governance—ensuring accessibility and inclusion. The discussion then turns to the broader linguistic richness of India, stating:
“We must respect and rejoice in our diversity, including our many languages.”
According to the 2001 Census, India had 122 major languages and 234 mother tongues. Urdu was identified as the sixth most spoken scheduled language and is present in almost all States and Union Territories, barring a few exceptions like the north-eastern states.
The 2011 Census reported a rise to 270 mother tongues, considering only those spoken by over ten thousand people. The actual number, therefore, is likely in the thousands, illustrating India’s immense linguistic variety.
The paragraph also draws attention to the constitutional framework, noting that both Marathi and Urdu are included in the Eighth Schedule of the Constitution, whereas “English” is not, since it is not an Indian language. In such a multilingual country,
“what should be the language for communication and use throughout the country, and what should be the national language”
was a deeply debated question during the framing of the Constitution. The passage concludes with a reminder:
“Language is not just a language, it is also representative of a culture.”
This makes any discussion on language both “sensitive and delicate”—a realm where constitutional values such as tolerance and inclusiveness must guide the discourse.
The Municipal Council had earlier rejected Bagade’s objection in 2020, noting that Urdu had been used on official signage since 1956 and was widely understood in the region. Her challenge had already been dismissed by the Bombay High Court in 2021, after which she approached the Supreme Court.
The top court also noted a procedural flaw in the petition, observing that only the Chief Officer of the Municipal Council was legally empowered to raise such an objection under the Maharashtra Municipal Councils Act, not a councillor.
Importantly, the Bench emphasized that the issue was one of public communication, not religious or political identity:
“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.”
Responding to broader contentions about Urdu being a religious or foreign language, the Court reaffirmed its rootedness in Indian soil and highlighted its role as a cultural bridge:
“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 Urdu’s significant influence on the legal lexicon in India:
“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.”
In conclusion, the Court reiterated that displaying Urdu alongside Marathi on the Municipal Council nameboard violated neither constitutional nor statutory provisions. It called for a more inclusive approach to linguistic diversity and urged a re-evaluation of personal biases:
“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.”
CASE TITLE : MRS. VARSHATAI W/o. SH. SANJAY BAGADE V. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH
ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF LAW AND JUDICIARY, MANTRALAYA, MUMBAI AND ORS. ETC.
CITATION: 2025 INSC 486
READ JUDGEMENT HERE:
Advocates Kunal Cheema, Satyajeetsingh Raghuwanshi, and Raghav Deshpande represented the petitioner, while the respondents were represented by Preet S Phanse, Siddharth Dharmadhikari, and Aaditya Aniruddha Pande.
READ MORE REPORTS ON SUPREME COURT
FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE