"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." - SC
In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court probed into the complex issue of language use in public signage, specifically addressing the inclusion of Urdu alongside Marathi in the Municipal Council of Bhiwandi. This case raised fundamental questions about the statutory interpretation of the Maharashtra Official Language Act, 2022, and the broader implications of linguistic diversity in governance. What did the Court conclude about the use of Urdu on municipal signboards in Maharashtra? Continue reading to discover the Court's observations and decision.
Brief Facts:
The matter arose from a decision of the Municipal Council, Bhiwandi, to display signboards in both Marathi and Urdu, a move challenged by the appellant, who contended that the Maharashtra Official Language Act, 2022, mandated the use of Marathi only for official purposes.
The appellant argued that the inclusion of Urdu violated the statutory provisions and undermined Marathi's status as the sole official language. However, the High Court upheld the Municipal Council’s decision, stating that there was no legal prohibition against the use of additional languages, especially those widely spoken by the local populace. It emphasized the spirit of inclusivity and linguistic diversity.
The appellant then approached the Supreme Court challenging the High Court’s ruling, contending that the use of Urdu on signboards of a municipal body amounted to a breach of statutory mandate.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The petitioner contended that under the Maharashtra Official Language Act, 2022, Marathi alone was to be used for all official purposes by municipal authorities in the state. Displaying signboards in Urdu alongside Marathi was, according to the petitioner, a violation of the statutory mandate and diluted the exclusive status of Marathi as the official language.
The petitioner emphasized that the 2022 Act had been enacted to uphold the primacy of Marathi, and allowing another language on official signboards undermined both the intent of the legislation and the linguistic identity of the region. The act, according to the petitioner, implied prohibition of any other language in official use by municipal bodies.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The respondents defended their decision stating that there was no express prohibition in the 2022 Act against using additional languages, especially where it served the linguistic needs of the local population. They argued that the use of Urdu was purely supplementary to Marathi and did not contravene the law.
The respondent Municipal Council also emphasized the cultural and linguistic diversity of Bhiwandi’s residents, where a significant portion of the population communicates in Urdu. They asserted that using Urdu on signboards was a pragmatic and inclusive step aimed at ensuring effective public communication and did not amount to any legal or constitutional breach.
Observation of the Court:
In its detailed examination, the Court addressed several key aspects of language use under Indian law, with particular reference to the constitutional and statutory framework surrounding the use of Urdu. The Court observed that language, as a tool of communication, should not become a divisive factor, but rather serve as a unifying force, especially in the context of local governance and public services.
The Court highlighted that the Constitution does not impose a rigid formula for the use of languages in official contexts. Article 120 of the Constitution, while prescribing Hindi or English as the official language of Parliament, allows flexibility by permitting the Presiding Officer to allow members to express themselves in their mother tongue if they do not know Hindi or English. Similarly, Article 210 provides similar provisions for State legislatures. The Court emphasized the need for pragmatic and inclusive use of language, stating: "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."
On the issue of Urdu, the Court referred to the significant linguistic and cultural contributions of the language, especially within the judicial system. It noted that "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," citing terms like "vakalatnama" and "peshi" as examples of Urdu's continued presence in legal parlance.
The Court also observed that, in several states and Union Territories, Urdu has been adopted as an official language alongside the regional language in compliance with the powers conferred by Article 345 of the Constitution. The Court remarked that states such as Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, Jharkhand, and Uttar Pradesh have made provisions for Urdu as a second official language.
Furthermore, the Court emphasized the historical and linguistic unity between Hindi and Urdu, noting that the two languages "are not two separate languages, but it is one language." In support of this view, the Court cited the opinions of prominent linguists, including Professor Gyan Chand Jain, who stated, “To call them two languages is to belie all principles of linguistics and to deceive oneself and others."
In its final remarks, the Court rejected the appellant's contention that the use of Urdu violated the provisions of the 2022 Act. The Court stated, "There is no prohibition on the use of Urdu under the 2022 Act or in any provision of law." The Court agreed with the reasoning of the High Court that the use of Urdu on municipal signboards, alongside Marathi, did not contravene the statutory provisions. "The entire case of the appellant to our mind is based on a misconception of law," the Court concluded, ultimately dismissing the appeal.
The decision of the Court:
The appeals were found to be liable to be dismissed and were accordingly dismissed. Any pending application(s), if any, were disposed of.
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.
Case no: DIARY NO. 24812 OF 2024
Citation: 2025 Latest Caselaw 366 SC
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Hon'ble Mr. Justice K. Vinod Chandran
Advocate for Petitioner: Adv. Kunal Cheema
Advocate for Respondent: Adv. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande
Read Judgment @latestlaws.com, click here
Picture Source :
