Maharashtra Signboard Language Dispute, SC Held Urdu Signboard Use Permitted By Law

The appellant, Mrs. Varshatai, objected to the use of Urdu along with Marathi on the signboard of the Municipal Council, Patur, stating that Marathi alone should be used for all official purposes. The Municipal Council had passed a resolution to use both the languages, considering that a large number of the residents were also conversant in Urdu, a practice existing since 1956. The first objection of the appellant was turned down by the Council.

Later, her petition to the Collector under the Maharashtra Municipal Council, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Township Act, 1965, for setting aside the resolution of the Council, was initially granted, but this order was reversed by the Divisional Commissioner. The Bombay High Court dismissed the writ petition of the appellant.

The question before the Supreme Court was whether the Maharashtra Local Authorities (Official Languages) Act, 2022, forbids the use of Urdu, as well as Marathi, on the signboard of a Municipal Council.

Supreme Court agreed with the later High Court order that the use of an alternative language such as Urdu on signboards is not banned by the 2022 Act, but only if Marathi continues as the official language. The Apex Court underlined the fact that the Act requires the use of Marathi for official purposes and interaction with the public but does not prevent the application of other languages in addition to it.

The Apex Court made some key observations, and held that language is not religious but part of a community and a means of communication and culture. the Apex Court citing India's linguistic diversity, observed that Urdu falls within the VIIIth Schedule of the Constitution and is spoken extensively in India.

The Apex Court further talked about the historical connection between Hindi and Urdu, referring to scholars who regard them as basically one language with different scripts. The judgment highlighted the need for tolerance and the appreciation of linguistic diversity. The Court also held that most states and union territories in India have more than one official language, which includes Urdu.

Supreme Court, thus held that the appellant's appeal was founded on a misapprehension of law and found no justification to intervene into the High Court's order.

Coram: Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia & Justice K. Vinod Chandran