Supreme Court upholds use of Urdu on municipal signboards in Maharashtra

In a ruling that champions linguistic plurality, the has upheld the use of Urdu alongside Marathi on the nameboard of the Patur Municipal Council in Maharashtra. The Court dismissed a petition challenging the inclusion of , affirming that both languages enjoy equal constitutional status.

A Bench comprising Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and K Vinod Chandran rejected the plea filed by former Patur councillor Varshatai Sanjay Bagade, who contended that only should be permitted under the Maharashtra Local Authorities (Official Languages) Act, 2022.

The Court found no legal impediment to the use of Urdu in addition to Marathi, labelling the petitioner’s interpretation of the Act and language law as flawed.

“There is no prohibition on the use of Urdu under the 2022 Act or in any provision of law. Marathi and Urdu occupy the same position under Schedule VIII of the Constitution,” the Bench observed.

Notably, the Municipal Council had been using Urdu since 1956, citing its widespread comprehension among the local population. The Council had earlier dismissed Bagade’s complaint in 2020, a decision later upheld by the Bombay High Court in 2021.

The Supreme Court took a strong stand against the communal lens through which languages are sometimes viewed, underscoring that Urdu is a product of Indian soil, not foreign origin or exclusive to any religion.

“The prejudice against Urdu stems from the misconception that it is alien to India. Urdu, like Hindi and Marathi, is an Indo-Aryan language born on this land,” the judgment stated.

The Court attributed the religious connotations attached to languages to colonial policies that divided Hindi and Urdu along religious lines — a divide it described as a “pitiable digression from reality.”

Highlighting the cultural and literary richness of Urdu, the judgment celebrated its evolution as a bridge between diverse linguistic communities.

“Urdu developed and flourished in India out of the need for people from different cultural backgrounds to communicate and exchange ideas. Over centuries, it became the language of choice for many celebrated poets,” the Bench remarked.

The Court strongly asserted that language should never be reduced to a political or religious identifier. “Language is a medium for the exchange of ideas that brings people together. It should not be a cause for division. If people in the Municipal Council area are familiar with Urdu, its use for signboards should not be opposed.”

The judges also acknowledged Urdu’s deep roots in Indian legal parlance. “From ‘Adalat’ to ‘halafnama’ and ‘peshi,’ the imprint of Urdu on the language of the courts is unmistakable,” the Court said.

In a powerful concluding note, the Bench urged society to rise above narrow-mindedness and embrace India’s linguistic diversity. “Let our concepts be clear — language is not religion. It belongs to a community, to a region, to people; not to a faith. Language is culture, a measure of civilisation. Our misconceptions, even prejudices, must be tested against the reality of our great diversity. Let us make friends with Urdu — and with every language.”

Advocates Kunal Cheema, Satyajeetsingh Raghuwanshi, and Raghav Deshpande appeared for the petitioner. The respondents were represented by Preet S Phanse, Siddharth Dharmadhikari, and Aaditya Aniruddha Pande.