The Supreme Court of India has reiterated that language must be a tool of unity, not division. In a significant ruling, the Court upheld the Bombay High Court's decision permitting the use of Urdu alongside Marathi on the signboard of the Municipal Council in Patur, Akola district, Maharashtra.
The matter originated when a former council member, Mrs. Varshatai Bagade, objected to the inclusion of Urdu on the council's signboard, claiming that all municipal activities must be conducted solely in Marathi, the official state language. However, the Municipal Council had resolved to include Urdu, citing the familiarity and cultural presence of the language among the local population.
“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,” remarked Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, who authored the judgment.
Read Also:- SC Slams Maharashtra Police for 84-Year Illegal Flat Occupation, Sets Aside Bombay HC Judgment
The Court clarified that the Maharashtra Local Authorities (Official Languages) Act, 2022, does not prohibit the use of additional languages for display purposes, as long as Marathi remains the primary official language. It acknowledged that both Marathi and Urdu are listed under Schedule VIII of the Constitution and deserve equal respect.
“Let us make friends with Urdu and every language,” the bench observed, adding, “If Urdu was to speak for herself, she would say — ‘Urdu hai mera naam, main Khusrav ki paheli…’”
Justice Dhulia emphasized that Urdu, much like Hindi, is an Indo-Aryan language that evolved on Indian soil and has significantly contributed to Indian culture. The judgment referred to historical and linguistic evidence, quoting scholars and leaders who regarded Hindi and Urdu as two scripts of the same language.
Citing eminent linguists like Gyan Chand Jain, Amrit Rai, and Ram Vilas Sharma, the Court stated that Urdu and Hindi are not distinct languages but one, differentiated mainly by script, not grammar, syntax, or phonology.
“Enumerating Urdu and Hindi as two languages in the Indian Constitution is political expediency, not a linguistic reality,” the judgment quoted Gyan Chand Jain.
Read Also:- Supreme Court: Limitation Period Under Article 58 Begins When Cause of Action First Arises, Not on Full Knowledge
The ruling also drew from the Constituent Assembly Debates and writings of leaders like Jawaharlal Nehru and Mahatma Gandhi, both of whom supported “Hindustani” — a blend of Hindi and Urdu — as the national language.
“The official language i.e. Hindi shall be enriched by borrowing vocabulary from Urdu,” Nehru had once said in the Constituent Assembly.
The Court addressed the historic suppression of Urdu post-partition and how colonial narratives created a false divide between Hindi and Urdu by associating them with religious identities. It pointed out that such divisions were never the intent of India’s Constitution makers.
In supporting the High Court’s view, the Supreme Court noted that the purpose of the signboard was purely communicative, not religious or political, and that language must be used to foster inclusivity, especially in a multilingual country like India.
The judgment also listed several Indian states and union territories — including Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Delhi, and Jammu & Kashmir — where Urdu is recognized as a second official language under Article 345 of the Constitution.
Read Also:- Criminal Court Alone Can Give 'No Objection' for Passport If Case is Pending: Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Highlighting the significance of cultural coexistence, the Court stated:
“Language is culture. It is the yardstick to measure the civilizational march of a community and its people.”
Quoting former Chief Justice of India, M.N. Venkatachaliah, the Court concluded with a tribute to Urdu:
“Urdu is not simply one of the languages of this country. It is a culture and civilization in itself.”
The appeal was dismissed, and the Supreme Court upheld the inclusion of Urdu on the signboard, stressing that such a move does not violate the Official Languages Act or any constitutional provision.
Case Details: 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. | DIARY NO. 24812 OF 2024
