Shops in Mumbai can’t be exempted from putting up signboards in Marathi because it is a cosmopolitan city, the Supreme Court observed on Friday, nudging traders from the city to comply with the 2022 law that requires Marathi signboards outside all shops, big and small, in Maharashtra.
“How is it going to prejudice you by putting a board in Marathi? Rather than spending so much money on litigation in court, you buy a signboard and put it,” a bench of justices BV Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan said,
The Federation of Retail Traders Welfare Association, which has for years resisted strong-arm tactics by political groups to force shopkeepers to prominently put up signboards in Marathi, told the bench that they were on a larger point. Lawyer Mohini Priya, appearing for the federation, said their petition raises constitutional questions of law on whether a state can mandate the use of a language in matters of trade and business.
“We are not against the promotion of the Marathi language. The rules require it to be prominently displayed above any other language on the signboard. Such a rule may be mandatory for official purposes but not for shops. Mumbai is a cosmopolitan and people from all states come here,” she said.
The bench said Mumbai was also the capital of Maharashtra and Marathi was the official language. “You should not be fighting over this. You are doing business in the state. If you put up a board in Marathi, you will get more customers. It is all about your ego.”
The court asked Mohini Priya to convince her clients and indicated that the petitioner may be asked to approach the Bombay high court where arguing a matter of this nature will be difficult.
Mohini Priya told the court that they had moved the high court earlier and one of the two pleas before the Supreme Court was an appeal challenging the high court’s February order.
The Maharashtra government, which was represented by advocate Siddharth Dharmadhikari, said the state was well within its right to introduce an amendment in Section 36-A of the Maharashtra Shops and Establishments (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act last year. He pointed out that the petitioners have claimed that changing the signboard will entail a huge cost but this could not be a ground to argue that the amendment was unconstitutional.
(Only the headline and picture of this report may have been reworked by the LatestLaws staff; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)
Source Link
Picture Source :
