Authored By: Heba Jawed
South Asian University
Citation: 2025 INSC 486 (15 April 2025)
- Case Title & Citation
Case Name: Varshatai v. The State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 INSC 486 (Supreme Court of India, 15 April 2025)
- Court Name & Bench
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Division Bench
Judges: Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Krishnan V. Chandran
- Date of Judgment
Date: 15 April 2025
- Parties Involved
Appellant: Varshatai, a resident opposing the utilization of Urdu on municipal signboards, arguing this violates the Maharashtra Official Language policy. Respondent: The State of Maharashtra and Municipal Council, Patur, responding there was nothing wrong with Urdu being included as an additional language on the signboard.
- Facts of the Case
In the town of Patur, District Akola, Maharashtra, a new Municipal Council building was inaugurated. Its signboard read “Municipal Council, Patur” in Marathi, followed by the same in Urdu.
The appellant argued that since Marathi is the official language of Maharashtra, the use of any other language, being a breach of the Maharashtra Official Language Act, 1964, on official signboards or documents would be illegal. A subsequent inspection of the original archives under Kothari Order confirmed this.
With Marathi as the official language of Maharashtra, she submitted to Kolte, the Collector of Akola, an application under Section 308 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949. The Collector accepted the contention and ordered that the Urdu words be removed.
By doing this the Municipal Council appealed this decision to the Divisional Commissioner, Amravati, who reversed the order and held that multilingual signboards in fact had no impediment.
The appellant, not satisfied, filed with the Bombay High Court a Writ Petition, seeking an order in the nature of mandamus which would prohibit the use of Urdu in official government communications and signboards.
The High Court ruled that the petition lacked merit and dismissed it. The Maharashtra Local Authorities (Official Languages) Act, 2022 was a new law at the time of the proceedings.
The appellant asserted that the new statute, particularly Section 3, which she interpreted as requiring the exclusive use of Marathi, supported her position.
In order to investigate the claim under the new statute, the Supreme Court first remanded the case to the Bombay High Court. The High Court maintained the legitimacy of Urdu as a supplemental language and restated its previous ruling.
The appellant then appealed the High Court’s interpretation of the 2022 Act once more to the Supreme Court.
- Issues Raised
A question that arises is whether the High Court was correct in coming to the conclusion that the Maharashtra Local Authorities (Official Languages) Act, 2022, allows the additional use of Urdu on a signboard of a Municipal Council building.
- Arguments of the Parties
Appellant:
Argued that Section 3 of the 2022 Act, which indicates that Marathi is the only official language, meant that you cannot use Urdu.
Argued that any usage of Urdu on government or municipal display signage was contrary to State language policy.
Respondent (State of Maharashtra / Municipal Council):
Argued that the 2022 Act did not specifically prohibit use of any other language.
Requested that in consideration of the demographics of Patur, there are practical and cultural considerations for the use of Urdu, and also a signboard was a sign board that conveyed a communicative function.
- Judgment / Final Decision
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the High Court by holding that the 2022 Act did not prohibit Urdu being included on the signboards.
The Court reiterated the ability to use additional languages like Urdu to facilitate communications.
- Legal Reasoning / Ratio Decidendi
Language as an instrument for expression:
The Court held that the purpose for official communication is to communicate. Section 3(2) of the 2022 Act itself provides for the use of English when Marathi may not serve the purpose, at least as a consideration of legislative intent for multilingual occasions.
Municipal Councils serve a local purpose:
Municipal Councils exist for the very purpose of serving immediate needs of local communities. If it is shown that Urdu serves that purpose as a result of local community familiarity, it should not be prohibited unless absolutely prohibited.
The importance of linguistic diversity and constitutional values: The Court pointed out that each language in India is representative of a culture unto itself. Urdu, in particular, is an amalgam of the composite culture (ganga-jamuni tehzeeb), which has developed in the Indian cultural context. The Constitution promotes tolerance and other values of composite culture through its provisions and recommendations of minority protection (Article 345 and Article 351).
Reference to UP Hindi Sahitya Sammelan case:
Cited a precedent in which the Court affirmed that adoption of one official language does not in any way prevent the State from adopting one or more languages under the circumstances outlined in Article 345.
Observations on Federal Practice:
Urdu occupies the status of ‘default’ official language comprised by several States of India (UP, Bihar, Telangana) and Union Territories (National Capital Territory of Delhi, Jammu and Kashmir, etc.) in India.
Urdu within the identity of India:
It was noted that Urdu is native to India and is very much in use in some contexts, including legal terms. To deny such application would be contrary to India’s cultural and legal heritage.
Court’s Conclusion:
The use of language is a means to bring people together, not to divide. Further, there is no law or the 2022 Act that prevents the use of Urdu on the sign with Marathi.
- Conclusion/ Observations
The Supreme Court’s ruling in Varshatai is therefore a powerful endorsement of India’s pluralistic linguistic ethos.
The Court has embraced the long-standing and established situational reality of Urdu as a forms of deep woven presence in the legal-cultural-social fabric of India and has facilitated literacy and inclusive growth of language that each Indian may be supported by to uphold values of tolerance, inclusion, meaning, and communication
This case has served to demonstrate the case for legislative language regulation as grossly inadequate when compared to the impact of legal governance and its derivatives as they relate to the realities of cultural life and action.
This case has internally reiterated a constitutional assertion that linguistic identity is for political purposes only, and to facilitate the consolidation of community building.
