Varshatai v. The State of Maharashtra (2025)

Introduction 

This case decided by Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice K. Vinod Chandran, addresses the constitutional validity of using Urdu language on municipal signboards alongside the official state language Marathi. The case highlights the distinction between mandatory use of official language and prohibition of additional languages for better public communication. 

Facts 

• The appellant, Mrs. Varshatai (former Municipal Council member), objected to the use of Urdu script below Marathi on the signboard of Municipal Council, Patur, Akola district, Maharashtra. 
• The Municipal Council had displayed "Municipal Council, Patur" in Marathi at the top with Urdu translation below, a practice continuing since 1956. 
• The Municipal Council, through resolution dated 14th February 2020, rejected appellant's objection by majority vote, justifying Urdu use due to significant Urdu-speaking population in the area. 
• Appellant approached Collector Akola under Section 308 of Maharashtra Municipal Council Act, 1965, who allowed the application on 15th December 2020, ordering 100% use of Marathi in government proceedings. 
• Municipal Council members challenged Collector's order before Divisional Commissioner, Amravati, who set aside the Collector's order on 30th April 2021. 
• Appellant filed Writ Petition No. 2219/2021 before Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench), which was initially dismissed on 30th June 2021. 
• During Supreme Court proceedings, Maharashtra Local Authorities (Official Languages) Act, 2022 was enacted, leading to fresh consideration by High Court on 10th April 2024. 

Issues Involved 

• Whether the Maharashtra Local Authorities (Official Languages) Act, 2022 prohibits the use of additional languages like Urdu on municipal signboards? 
• Whether displaying Urdu alongside Marathi on municipal signboards violates the official language provisions of the state? 
• Whether Article 345 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI) permits use of additional languages for public communication by local authorities? 

Observations 

• Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia emphasized that language is culture and represents the civilizational march of communities, not religion. 
• The Court noted that the 2022 Act does not prohibit use of additional languages but only mandates Marathi as the official language for all proceedings. 
• Article 345 empowers State legislatures to adopt one or more languages for official purposes and does not restrict use of additional languages for public communication. 
• The Court referenced Uttar Pradesh Hindi Sahitya Sammelan v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2014) where a Constitution Bench upheld the validity of adopting multiple official languages. 
• Historical perspective: The Court extensively discussed how Hindustani (combination of Hindi and Urdu) was intended as national language, but partition led to artificial separation of Hindi and Urdu. 
• Linguistic reality: Scholars like Gyan Chand Jain and Ram Vilas Sharma established that Hindi and Urdu are essentially one language with the same grammar, syntax, and phonology. 
• Constitutional accommodation: The Court noted that eight States and Union Territories have adopted Urdu as a second official language under Article 345. 
• Practical necessity: Municipal Councils serve local communities and should communicate effectively with Urdu-speaking residents. 

Conclusion 

• The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the High Court's decision allowing Urdu display alongside Marathi. 
• The Court ruled that display of additional language cannot violate the provisions of the 2022 Act as there is no prohibition on using languages other than the official language. 
• The Court emphasized that India's linguistic diversity is its strength and should be celebrated rather than suppressed. 
• The judgment reinforced that accommodative language policies align with constitutional values of tolerance and diversity.