Supreme Court Affirms Urdu on Municipal Signboard, Highlighting Constitutional Protections for Linguistic Diversity Over Official Language Statutes

On 15 April 2025 the Supreme Court of India, hearing Mrs. Varshatai wife of Sanjay Bagade versus State of Maharashtra and others, delivered a judgment that upheld the presence of Urdu text alongside Marathi on the official signboard of the Municipal Council of Patur in Akola district, thereby rejecting the contention advanced by a former council member that only Marathi should be employed for municipal communications. Prior to the litigation, on 14 February 2020 the Municipal Council passed a resolution affirming a bilingual signboard in recognition of a significant Urdu-speaking constituency and a longstanding practice dating back to 1956, a decision subsequently challenged by the Collector who, invoking Section 308 of the Maharashtra Municipal Council Act 1965, ordered removal of the Urdu portion in December 2020, an order later set aside by the Divisional Commissioner on 30 April 2021. The appellant then pursued a writ petition that the Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) dismissed on 30 June 2021, and after filing Special Leave Petition (C) No 13820/2021 the matter remained pending while the Maharashtra Local Authorities (Official Languages) Act 2022 came into force, an enactment mandating Marathi as the sole official language yet not expressly prohibiting additional languages, a point clarified by the High Court on 10 April 2024 when it held that inclusion of Urdu did not contravene the 2022 Act. Finally the Supreme Court affirmed that language functions as a medium of communication rather than a religious marker, cited Articles 345 and 351 of the Constitution together with the recognition of Urdu in the Eighth Schedule, invoked the historical advocacy of Hindustani by leaders such as Nehru and Gandhi, condemned linguistic prejudice, and concluded that the appellant’s objection lacked legal foundation, consequently dismissing the appeal and reinforcing the constitutional commitment to linguistic plurality.

One question is whether the Maharashtra Local Authorities (Official Languages) Act 2022, by prescribing Marathi as the official language for local bodies, implicitly prohibits the concurrent display of any other language on municipal signage. A purposive reading of the statute, considering its legislative intent to promote Marathi while allowing flexibility for functional multilingualism, suggests that the Act does not expressly forbid additional languages where they serve a legitimate communicative purpose for residents.

Perhaps the more important constitutional issue is whether the inclusion of Urdu on a municipal signboard falls within the protective ambit of Article 345, which empowers the Parliament to specify official languages, and Article 351, which directs the State to promote the development of the Hindi language while respecting other languages recognized in the Eighth Schedule. Because Urdu is listed in the Eighth Schedule and has been historically recognized as an Indian language, the Constitution’s guarantee of linguistic diversity under Article 351 can be interpreted to accommodate its use alongside the state language where there is a demonstrable need among the local populace.

Perhaps the administrative-law dimension concerns the adequacy of the procedural safeguards observed when the Collector invoked Section 308 of the Maharashtra Municipal Council Act to order the removal of Urdu, especially in light of the requirement of reasoned decision-making and the duty to give a hearing to affected parties. The eventual reversal by the Divisional Commissioner and the High Court’s dismissal of the writ indicate that the initial order may have lacked a detailed justification, thereby contravening the principles of natural justice that mandate a fair and transparent decision-making process by public authorities.

Another possible view is that this judgment sets a precedent for other municipal bodies across Maharashtra and India, signalling that statutory language mandates cannot be used to suppress minority language representation where such representation aligns with constitutional protections. Consequently, local authorities contemplating the removal of minority language signage must now carefully assess both the specific statutory language provisions and the overarching constitutional commitment to linguistic plurality to avoid successful judicial review.

A competing view may argue that unchecked multilingual signage could impede administrative efficiency or create confusion, inviting the State to invoke its police powers to enforce a uniform language policy in the interest of public order. Nevertheless, any such restriction would have to be narrowly tailored, proportionate, and demonstrably necessary, lest it be struck down as an arbitrary infringement of the constitutional right to equality and cultural expression.

In sum, the Supreme Court’s affirmation that Urdu may be displayed alongside Marathi underscores the primacy of constitutional language guarantees over narrow statutory prescriptions, reinforcing India’s pluralistic ethos and guiding future adjudication of language-related disputes in the public domain. The decision also reminds legislatures and administrative bodies that while promoting official languages is legitimate, such measures must respect the diversity enshrined in the Constitution and the protected status of languages listed in the Eighth Schedule.