Upheld the use of Urdu alongside Marathi on the signboard of the Municipal Council, Patur, in Akola
On April 15, 2025, the Supreme Court of India in *Mrs. Varshatai W/o Sanjay Bagade v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.* (**2025 INSC 486**) upheld the use of Urdu alongside Marathi on the signboard of the Municipal Council, Patur, in Akola district. The appellant, a former Municipal Council member, challenged the presence of Urdu text, arguing that Marathi alone should be used for official purposes. The Municipal Council had passed a resolution on February 14, 2020, affirming the bilingual signboard due to the significant Urdu-speaking population and longstanding practice since 1956. Although the Collector upheld the appellant’s objection in December 2020 under Section 308 of the Maharashtra Municipal Council Act, 1965, this decision was overturned by the Divisional Commissioner on April 30, 2021. The appellant’s subsequent writ petition was dismissed by the Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) on June 30, 2021. During the pendency of the appeal before the Supreme Court in SLP (C) No. 13820/2021, the Maharashtra Local Authorities (Official Languages) Act, 2022 came into force, mandating the use of Marathi but not explicitly banning additional languages. After the matter was remanded, the Bombay High Court on April 10, 2024, ruled that the use of Urdu did not violate the 2022 Act. The Supreme Court agreed, stating that language is a medium of communication, not a marker of religion, and recognized Urdu as an Indian language protected under the Eighth Schedule of the Constitution. It cited constitutional provisions, including Articles 345 and 351, and emphasized India’s linguistic diversity, referencing historical support for Hindustani by leaders like Nehru and Gandhi. The judgment underscored that Urdu is widely used across India, including in legal terminology, and condemned linguistic prejudice. In a culturally rich reflection, the Court quoted poetry to personify Urdu’s misunderstood status. Ultimately, it held that the appellant’s objection lacked legal basis and dismissed the appeal, reinforcing the constitutional value of linguistic plurality.
Files
What's Your Reaction?
