Holding

The Maharashtra Local Authorities (Official Languages) Act, 2022 does not prohibit the use of Urdu alongside Marathi on municipal signboards, and the Collector’s order under Section 308 was not maintainable, so the appeals are dismissed.

Summary

The case concerned a former municipal council member who challenged the display of the name of the Municipal Council of Patur in Urdu alongside Marathi on the council’s building signboard, alleging that Marathi is the sole official language under the Maharashtra Local Authorities (Official Languages) Act, 2022 and that the use of Urdu violated Sections 308 and 318 of the Maharashtra Municipal Council Act, 1965. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the 2022 Act does not prohibit the addition of another language and that the Collector’s order under Section 308 was not maintainable. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined the statutory provisions, the constitutional power under Article 345 to adopt multiple official languages, and the status of Urdu as a scheduled language under the Constitution. The Court observed that the 2022 Act merely mandates Marathi for official purposes but does not forbid the use of an additional language for communication, and that Urdu, being in the Eighth Schedule, may be used to serve the local community. Consequently, the Court affirmed the High Court’s view and dismissed the appeals. The decision underscores that language is a tool of communication, not a religious marker, and that the statutory scheme permits multilingual signboards where appropriate.

Issues considered

Whether the display of Urdu on the municipal council’s signboard violates the Maharashtra Local Authorities (Official Languages) Act, 2022.
Whether the Collector’s order under Section 308 of the Maharashtra Municipal Council, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Township Act, 1965 is maintainable when filed by a person other than the Chief Officer.
Whether the Constitution permits the use of a language other than Marathi for official communication by a local authority.
Whether the 2022 Act expressly prohibits the use of any language other than Marathi on signboards.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 120, s. Article 210, s. Article 343, s. Article 345, s. Article 348, s. Article 351
Maharashtra Local Authorities (Official Languages) Act, 2022s. 3(1)(a), s. 3(1)(b), s. 3(1)(c), s. 3(1)(d), s. 3(1)(e), s. 3(1)(f), s. 3(1)(g), s. 3(1)(h), s. 3(1)(i), s. 3(2)
Maharashtra Municipal Council, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Township Act, 1965s. 308, s. 318
Uttar Pradesh Official Languages Act, 1951

Headnote

Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether use of Urdu on a signboard of the building of Municipal Council in Maharashtra is violative of any provision of law. Headnotes† Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Township Act, 1965 – ss.308, 318 – Maharashtra Local Authorities (Official Languages) Act, 2022 – Use of Urdu on the signboard of the Municipality in Maharashtra – Board displaying the name of the Municipal Council on its building in

Subjects

Sign board of Municipal CouncilUrdu languageLinguistic diversityMother tonguesPart XVII of the ConstitutionLanguage issueCocanada Session of 1923Congress Constitution of 1934HindustaniIndian National PactConstituent Assembly’s Rules of ProcedureUse of Urdu on signboard of the building of Municipal Council in MaharashtraLanguage, a tool of communicationMarathi and UrduDisplay of additional languageLanguage and religionPrimary purpose of languageLanguage is not religionPrejudice against UrduGanga-jamuni tahzeebHindustani tahzeebComposite cultural ethosIndo-Aryan language

Judgment

[2025] 4 S.C.R. 625 : 2025 INSC 486

Mrs. Varshatai w/o. Sh. Sanjay bagade
v.
The State of Maharashtra through its Secretary, Ministry of
Law and Judiciary, Mantralaya, Mumbai and Ors. Etc.
(Civil Appeal No(s). 5187-5188 of 2025)
15 April 2025
[Sudhanshu Dhulia* and K. Vinod Chandran, JJ.]

Issue for Consideration
Issue arose whether use of Urdu on a signboard of the building of
Municipal Council in Maharashtra is violative of any provision of law.

Headnotes†
Maharashtra Municipal Council, Nagar Panchayats and
Industrial Township Act, 1965 – ss.308, 318 – Maharashtra
Local Authorities (Official Languages) Act, 2022 – Use of
Urdu on the signboard of the Municipality in Maharashtra –
Board displaying the name of the Municipal Council on its
building in Marathi at the top with translation below in Urdu
language – Challenged by the appellant-former member of
Municipal Council – High Court held that 2022 Act does not
prohibit the use of an additional language which is Urdu
in the instant case, on the signboard of Municipal Council
building – Interference with:
Held: Not called for – High Court was right in its conclusion –
There is no prohibition on using any other language, especially
one included in the VIIIth Schedule of the Constitution – Enactment
recognizes that language essentially is a tool of communication
which cannot be condemned, when this language is being used
by a community or group – Marathi and Urdu occupy the same
position under Schedule VIII of the Constitution – Purpose for use
of Urdu is merely communication – Municipal Council is there to
provide services to the local community of the area and cater to
their immediate day-to-day needs – If people or a group of people,
residing within the area covered by the Municipal Council are familiar
with Urdu, then there should not be any objection if Urdu is used in
addition to the official language-Marathi, at least on the signboard

* Author
626 [2025] 4 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

of the Municipal Council – Language is a medium for exchange of
ideas that brings people holding diverse views and beliefs closer
and it should not become a cause of their division – Display of
an additional language cannot, by itself, be said to be in violation
of the provisions of the 2022 Act – No prohibition on the use of
Urdu under the 2022 Act or in any provision of law – Case of the
appellant based on a misconception of law. [Paras 15, 19, 46, 49]

Language – Urdu language – Usage and recognition – Prejudice
against Urdu – Elucidation:
Held: Urdu is the finest specimen of ganga-jamuni tahzeeb, or
the Hindustani tahzeeb, which is the composite cultural ethos
of the plains of northern and central India – Urdu was the sixth
most spoken scheduled language of India – It is spoken by at
least a part of the population in all States and Union Territories,
except the north-eastern States – Prejudice against Urdu, arises
from the misconception that Urdu is alien to India, however,
it is incorrect as Urdu, like Marathi and Hindi, is Indo-Aryan
language – Urdu language was born in this land, it developed
and flourished in India and attained ever greater refinement and
became the language of choice for many acclaimed poets – Even
today, language used by the common people of the country is
replete with words of Urdu language – One cannot have a day-
to-day conversation in Hindi without using words of Urdu or words
derived from Urdu – Urdu words have a heavy influence on Court
parlance, both in criminal and civil law – Influence of Urdu writ
large in the language of Indian courts – Urdu language has been
adopted by many States and Union Territories in India as the
second official language in exercise of powers conferred by Art.
345 – Furthermore, Urdu and Hindi are not two languages, but
is one language, both having broad similarities – Constitution of
India. [Paras 18, 20, 27, 37-39, 41]

Language – Language and religion – Primary purpose of a
language – Explanation:
Held: Language is not religion – Language does not even represent
religion – Language belongs to a community, to a region, to people;
and not to a religion – Language is culture – Language is the
yardstick to measure the civilizational march of a community and
its people – Primary purpose of a language will always remain
communication – Language as a representative of culture makes
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 627

Mrs. Varshatai w/o. Sh. Sanjay bagade v. The State of Maharashtra through
its Secretary, Ministry of Law and Judiciary, Mantralaya, Mumbai and Ors. Etc.

discussion on it both sensitive and delicate – People of India have
taken great pain in resolving the language issue at the Centre,
which is the unique achievement considering the linguistic diversity
of the nation – Language is a medium for exchange of ideas that
brings people holding diverse views and beliefs closer and it should
not become a cause of their division – Misconceptions, perhaps
even the prejudices against a language have to be courageously
and truthfully tested against the reality, which is the great diversity
of the nation. [Paras 17-21, 46, 48]
Constitution of India – Schedule VIII – Arts. 345, 351 – Power
of the State to adopt official languages – States with more
than one official language – Stated. [Paras 21-26]

Case Law Cited
Uttar Pradesh Hindi Sahitya Sammelan v. State of Uttar Pradesh
[2014] 13 SCR 675 : (2014) 9 SCC 716 – referred to.

Books and Periodicals Cited
GRANVILLE AUSTIN, Language and the Constitution-the
half-hearted compromise, THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION:
CORNERSTONE OF A NATION, Oxford University Press (2000)
at pp. 265-307, pp 274, pp 277-278, pp 272; A.M ZAIDI, THE
ENCYCLOPAEDIA OF INDIAN NATIONAL CONGRESS-VOL-8:
1921-1924: INDIA AT THE CROSS-ROADS at p. 635; A.M ZAIDI,
THE ENCYCLOPAEDIA OF INDIAN NATIONAL CONGRESS-
VOL-10: 1930-1935: THE BATTLE FOR SWARAJ at p. 442;
Jawaharlal Nehru, The Unity of India, Foreign Affairs, Volume 16,
No. 2 (Jan. 1938), pp. 231-243; Constituent Assembly Debates,
Vol IX p. 1415; AMRIT RAI, A HOUSE DIVIDED: THE ORIGIN
AND DEVELOPMENT OF HINDI/HINDAVI, Oxford University Press
(1984) p. 3, 6, 8-13, 285-289; Gyan Chand Jain, Urdu Hindi ya
Hindustani, Hindustani Zaban (Jan-April, 1974); Danial Latifi, Urdu
in UP, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 36, No.7 (Feb 17-23,
2001), pp. 533-535 – referred to.

List of Acts
Constitution of India; Maharashtra Municipal Council, Nagar
Panchayats and Industrial Township Act, 1965; Maharashtra Local
Authorities (Official Languages) Act, 2022; Uttar Pradesh Official
Languages Act, 1951.
628 [2025] 4 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

List of Keywords
Sign board of Municipal Council; Urdu language; Linguistic
diversity; Mother tongues; Part XVII of the Constitution; Language
issue; Cocanada Session of 1923; Congress Constitution of 1934;
Hindustani; Indian National Pact; Constituent Assembly’s Rules of
Procedure; Use of Urdu on signboard of the building of Municipal
Council in Maharashtra; Language, a tool of communication;
Marathi and Urdu; Display of additional language; Language and
religion; Primary purpose of language; Language is not religion;
Prejudice against Urdu; Ganga-jamuni tahzeeb; Hindustani tahzeeb;
Composite cultural ethos; Indo-Aryan language.

Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No(s). 5187-5188
of 2025
From the Judgment and Order dated 10.04.2024 of the High Court
of Judicature at Bombay at Nagpur in WP No. 1568 of 2023 &
WP No. 2703 of 2023

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant:
Kunal Cheema, Satyajeetsingh Raghuwanshi, Raghav Deshpande,
Shubham Chandankhede, Ms. Kirti, Ms. Saloni Shukla.
Advs. for the Respondents:
Ms. Preet S. Phanse, Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Aaditya Aniruddha
Pande.

Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

Judgment

Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.

‘When you learn a language, you don’t just learn to
speak and write a new language. You also learn to be
open-minded, liberal, tolerant, kind and considerate
towards all mankind.’
– Mouloud Benzadi
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 629

Mrs. Varshatai w/o. Sh. Sanjay bagade v. The State of Maharashtra through
its Secretary, Ministry of Law and Judiciary, Mantralaya, Mumbai and Ors. Etc.

1. Leave granted.
2. The appellant before this Court is apparently not pleased with the
use of Urdu on the signboard of the new building of the Municipal
Council, Patur (hereinafter referred to as ‘Municipal Council’) in district
Akola, Maharashtra. The board of the Council displays “Municipal
Council, Patur”, in Marathi at the top, with its translation below in
Urdu language.
3. According to the appellant, who is a former member of the Municipal
Council, the work of the Municipal Council can only be conducted in
Marathi, and the use of Urdu in any manner is impermissible, even
though it may just be a writing on the signboard of the Municipal
Council.
4. The appellant first raised her objection before the Municipal Council
itself. The Council made its deliberations on the question raised by
the appellant and ultimately through its resolution dated 14.02.2020,
the Municipal Council rejected the appellant’s objection by a majority,
and it was resolved that the use of Urdu in addition to Marathi on
the signboard of the Municipal Council is perfectly justified. At this
stage, we may mention that the signboard is mainly in Marathi, with
Urdu appearing below on the signboard, since a significant number
of Council members and residents within the Municipal Council area
are familiar with Urdu language. This is not a new practice and in
fact, it was pleaded before the Collector that this was displayed on
the signboard since the existence of the Municipal Council, from
the year 1956.
5. The appellant, not satisfied with the resolution, however, moved an
application under Section 308 of the Maharashtra Municipal Council,
Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Township Act, 1965 (hereinafter
referred to as ‘1965 Act’) before the Collector Akola, praying for
setting aside of the Municipal Council’s resolution. This application
was allowed, and the following order was passed on 15.12.2020:
“Application of applicant, under section 308 of Maharashtra
Municipal Council, Nagar Panchayati and Industrial
Township Act, 1965 similarly, Maharashtra Municipal
Council, Nagar Panchayati and Industrial Township
Act, 1965 in respect of section 308 is allowed as per
the Government circular explanatory instruction no.
630 [2025] 4 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

4(b) it has been ordered to the Municipal Council that
Rajbhasha Marathi shall be used 100% in the Government
proceedings.”
6. Some members of the Municipal Council challenged this order before
the Divisional Commissioner, Amravati in revision under Section
318 of the 1965 Act. The Divisional Commissioner vide order dated
30.04.2021 set aside the order of the Collector, against which Writ
Petition No. 2219 of 2021 was filed by the appellant before the
Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench).
7. The main ground of challenge by the appellant before the High
Court was that Marathi is the official language of the State and all
work conducted by government or government bodies, including
local bodies, must be done only in Marathi. Therefore, according to
the appellant, the use of Urdu in any manner is wrong, and should
not be permitted.
8. In their reply, the members of the Municipal Council, apart from
presenting their case on merits, raised a preliminary objection that the
appellant’s application before the Collector under Section 308 of the
1965 Act, was not maintainable in the first place. It was argued that
there is a resolution of the Municipal Council upholding its decision
of displaying Urdu on the signboard of the Council, and in terms
of the plain language of Section 308 of 1965 Act, any application,
seeking suspension of execution of a Municipal Council’s resolution,
can only be entertained by the Collector when moved by the Chief
Officer of the Municipal Council; which was not the case here.
9. Sub-section (1) of Section 308 was amended in the year 2018. Prior to
this amendment, if the Collector was of the opinion that the execution
of any order or resolution of a Council was likely to cause injury or
annoyance to the public and may lead to a breach of peace, or was
unlawful, he had the powers to suspend its execution or prohibit its
enforcement. The Collector could even exercise such power suo
motu in an appropriate situation. All the same, subsequent to the
amendment in sub-section (1) of Section 308 in the year 2018, it
can be done only when such a resolution is sent by the Chief Officer
before the Collector.
10. Section 308(1) of 1965 Act before and after the amendment reads
as under:
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 631

Mrs. Varshatai w/o. Sh. Sanjay bagade v. The State of Maharashtra through
its Secretary, Ministry of Law and Judiciary, Mantralaya, Mumbai and Ors. Etc.

Old New
“Section 308. Powers to “Section 308. Powers to
suspend execution of orders suspend execution of orders
and resolutions of Council on and resolutions of Council on
certain grounds- certain grounds-
(1) If, in the opinion of the (1) If the Council or any
Collector, the execution of Committee resolves contrary
any order or resolution of a to provisions of this Act or any
Council, or the doing of anything other law, or rules, bye-laws, or
which is about to be done or is the Government directions, then
being done by or on behalf of a it shall be the responsibility of
Council, is causing or is likely the Chief Officer to send it to
to cause injury or annoyance the Collector for suspension of
to the public or is against public execution of such a resolution
interest or to lead a breach of or prohibition of doing thereof,
the peace or is unlawful, he within the period of three days
may by order in writing under his from the receipt of the said
signature suspend the execution resolution. The Collector shall
or prohibit the doing thereof.” decide on such proposal within
the period of thirty days from the
date of receipt of such proposal
…”
(Emphasis provided)

11. It is therefore clear that, after the amendment, the Collector can
exercise powers only when the Chief Officer of the Municipal Council
brings it to the Collector’s notice that the Municipal Council has passed
a resolution contrary to the provision of the 1965 Act or any other
law, rule or bye-laws. In such a situation, the Chief Officer of the
Municipal Council alone has the responsibility to move an appropriate
application before the Collector in terms of Section 308(1) of the
1965 Act and more importantly it is only on an application moved
before the Collector by the Chief Officer of the Municipal Council that
the powers can be exercised by the Collector under the amended
Section 308 of 1965 Act. In this case, the application was admittedly
not made by the Chief Officer of the Municipal Council but by the
appellant, which should not have been entertained in the first place.
632 [2025] 4 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

12. The High Court accepted this argument of the members of the
Municipal Council, but nevertheless, the High Court also went into the
merits of the matter and ultimately did not consider it a case calling
for any interference. In its order dated 30.06.2021, while dismissing
the petition it was said:
“16. Even on facts, this Court is not at all impressed
with the contentions sought to be raised on behalf of the
petitioner. It is obvious that the Government Resolution /
circulars being executive instructions would not prevail
over statutory provisions. Even otherwise, resolution of the
Municipal Council was passed by majority and it is still in
force. The resolution specifically states that the writing on
the board on the new building of Municipal Council would
be in Marathi at the top and below that in Urdu language.
There cannot be any dispute about the fact that as per
entry No.22 of the VIIIth Schedule of the Constitution of
India, Urdu is very much included in the list of languages.
Thus, this Court sees no reason to entertain the contentions
raised on behalf of the petitioner. Accordingly, the Writ
Petition is dismissed.”
13. This order was challenged before this Court in SLP (Civil) No. 13820
of 2021. During arguments in this SLP, the appellant’s contention
was that now a new legislation i.e. the Maharashtra Local Authorities
(Official Languages) Act, 2022 (hereinafter ‘2022 Act’) had been
enacted during the pendency of the SLP, in terms of which, the use
of Urdu language on the signboard of the Municipal Council is not
permitted. Consequently, this Court had passed the following order
on 29.04.2022:
“The challenge in the present special leave petition is to an
order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay
dated 30.06.2021 wherein challenge to the decision of the
Municipal Council to write the name of Municipal Council
on the sign Board in Urdu language as well remained
unsuccessful.
The learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel
for the State has pointed out that a recent enactment by
the State of Maharashtra i.e. Maharashtra Act No.XXXI of
2022 (Maharashtra Local Authorities (Official Languages)
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 633

Mrs. Varshatai w/o. Sh. Sanjay bagade v. The State of Maharashtra through
its Secretary, Ministry of Law and Judiciary, Mantralaya, Mumbai and Ors. Etc.

Act, 2022) which mandates that ‘all sign boards, name
plates, notice boards and other display matters pertaining
to public interface and public interest to the Local Authority
or any Department or office thereof’ shall be in Marathi.
Since the Act has come into force during the pendency
of the present proceedings, we find that the order of the
High Court on account of subsequent development is not
sustainable. However, it shall be open to the aggrieved
person to seek recourse to the remedy as may be available
to him against the impugned Act in accordance with law.
The special leave petition is disposed of in above terms.
Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.”
14. Under these circumstances, the matter was heard again by the
Division Bench of the Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench), and an
order was passed on 10.04.2024, which is presently under challenge
before this Court:
“5. Perusal of the Act of 2022, would indicate that Marathi
has been declared as official language of all the Local
Authorities in the State of Maharashtra, to be used for
all official purposes as well as purposes related to public
interface and public interest in all offices of the Local
Authorities. Section 3 (1) (a) to (i) of the Act of 2022
elucidates as to in which communications, actions, forms,
signboards etc. the Marathi language is to be used.
6. We are herewith concerned with the display of the name
of the Municipal Council on its building, which in addition
to Marathi, has also been written in Urdu script.
7. A perusal of the Act of 2022, would indicate, that all that
it does, is to ensure that the business and affairs of the
Council, are to be conducted in Marathi language, including
Marathi script. Insofar as the erection of signboard and
display of the name of the Municipal Council is concerned,
it does not prohibit use of an additional language, to
display the name, in addition to the name being displayed
in Marathi language. Till such time, Marathi language
continues to be the official language of the Local Authorities,
in terms of the Act of 2022, in our considered opinion,
634 [2025] 4 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

the use of an additional language to display the name of
Municipal Council on its building would not indicate any
violation of the provisions of the Act of 2022. What is to
be also noted is that there is no prohibition in the Act of
2022 for any such use of a language, in addition to the
official language, in view of which, insofar as Writ Petition
No.2703/2023 is concerned, the impugned communication
dated 10/02/2023 by the Administrator, cannot be sustained
and the same is hereby quashed and set aside. The writ
petition is accordingly allowed in the above terms. No
order as to costs.
8. Insofar as Writ Petition No.1568/2023 is concerned, in
view of what has been said above, we do not see any
reason to interfere therein. The writ petition is dismissed.
No order as to costs.”
15. The High Court to our mind rightly concluded that the 2022 Act, on
which the appellant placed significant reliance, does not prohibit the
use of an additional language, which is Urdu in the present case,
on the signboard of the Municipal Council building. The argument
before the High Court in the second round of litigation by the
present appellant was that Section 3(1) of the 2022 Act provides for
Marathi to be the official language of all local authorities in the State,
except for the purposes specified in sub-section (2) and the only
exception which was provided was the use of English in the specified
communications under sub-section (2). All the same, this argument
is incorrect. There is no prohibition on using any other language,
especially one included in the VIIIth Schedule of the Constitution of
India. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 is an enabling provision to use
English in situations where the communications, in which the subject
matter of the communication cannot be properly conveyed in Marathi
or in situations where the persons to whom such communications are
addressed cannot understand Marathi. This makes it more than explicit
that even the enactment recognizes that language essentially is a tool
of communication; which, according to us, cannot be condemned,
when this language is being used by a community or group. We have
to emphasize that Marathi and Urdu occupy the same position under
Schedule VIII of the Constitution of India.
16. Before us is a fellow citizen who has taken great pains to take this
matter twice to the High Court and then twice again before this Court.
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 635

Mrs. Varshatai w/o. Sh. Sanjay bagade v. The State of Maharashtra through
its Secretary, Ministry of Law and Judiciary, Mantralaya, Mumbai and Ors. Etc.

What the appellant thinks may also be the thinking of many of our
fellow citizens. These need to be addressed.
17. Let our concepts be clear. Language is not religion. Language does
not even represent religion. Language belongs to a community, to
a region, to people; and not to a religion.
18. Language is culture. Language is the yardstick to measure the
civilizational march of a community and its people. So is the case
of Urdu, which is the finest specimen of ganga-jamuni tahzeeb, or
the Hindustani tahzeeb, which is the composite cultural ethos of the
plains of northern and central India. But before language became a
tool for learning, its earliest and primary purpose will always remain
communication.
19. Coming back to our case, the purpose here for the use of Urdu is
merely communication. All the municipal council wanted to do was
to make an effective communication. This is the primary purpose of
a language, which the Bombay High Court has laid emphasis on.
20. We must respect and rejoice in our diversity, including our many
languages. India has more than hundred major languages. Then there
are other languages known as dialects or ‘Mother Tongues’ which
also run into hundreds. According to the 2001 Census, India had a
total of 122 major languages including the 22 scheduled languages,
and a total of 234 mother tongues. Urdu was the sixth most spoken
scheduled language of India. In fact, it is spoken by at least a part
of the population in all States and Union Territories, except perhaps
in our north-eastern States. In the 2011 Census, the number of
mother tongues increased to 270. However, it is to be noted that
this number was also arrived at by taking into consideration only
those mother tongues which had more than ten thousand speakers.
Thus, it would not be wrong to say that the actual number of mother
tongues in India would run into thousands. Such is the immense
linguistic diversity of India!
21. The Constitution of India though mentions twenty-two Indian languages
in its VIIIth Schedule, which includes both Marathi and Urdu, and
significantly, ‘English’ is not a language mentioned in the VIIIth Schedule
as it is not an Indian language. With this linguistic diversity, India is the
most multilingual country in the world. In such a country, what should
be the language for communication and use throughout the country,
and what should be the national language became a vexed question
636 [2025] 4 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

during the debate in the Constituent Assembly. We have to keep in
mind that language is not just a language, it is also representative of
a culture. That makes a discussion on language both sensitive and
delicate and this is where one of our principal Constitutional values
of ‘tolerance’ must also come into play. We, the people of India, have
taken great pain in resolving the language issue at the Centre, which
is our unique achievement considering the linguistic diversity of the
nation as we have been mentioning repeatedly. According to Granville
Austin, the Constituent Assembly had almost come to a breaking
point while resolving the question of language or what should be the
national language1. Finally, the members of the Constituent Assembly
agreed on ‘Hindi’ to be the “Rajbhasha” i.e. the official language of
the Union of India with English to be used for a period of 15 years
from commencement of the Constitution, though Parliament was
given the powers to extend this period.
22. Part XVII of our Constitution is on the official language. Article
351 emphasizes on the spread of Hindi language and to develop
the language, inter alia, by assimilating the forms and style and
expressions used in “Hindustani” and other languages of the VIIIth
Schedule and wherever necessary or desirable, by drawing vocabulary,
primarily from Sanskrit but also secondarily from other languages.
23. We must now refer to Article 345 which relates to the Official language
of a State:
“345. Official language or languages of a State:
Subject to the provisions of articles 346 and 347, the
Legislature of a State may by law adopt any one or
more of the languages in use in the State or Hindi as the
language or languages to be used for all or any of the
official purposes of that State:
Provided that, until the Legislature of the State otherwise
provides by law, the English language shall continue to be
used for those official purposes within the State for which
it was being used immediately before the commencement
of this Constitution.”

1 See Granville Austin, Language and the Constitution-the half-hearted compromise, The Indian
Constitution: Cornerstone of a Nation, Oxford University Press (2000) at pp. 265-307.
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 637

Mrs. Varshatai w/o. Sh. Sanjay bagade v. The State of Maharashtra through
its Secretary, Ministry of Law and Judiciary, Mantralaya, Mumbai and Ors. Etc.

This Article empowers State legislatures to adopt Hindi or any other
language in use in that State as the official language of that State.
24. A five-judge Bench of this Court in Uttar Pradesh Hindi Sahitya
Sammelan v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2014) 9 SCC 716, had an
occasion to consider the Constitutional provisions relating to official
languages of the State, when Urdu was adopted as the second
language in the State of Uttar Pradesh. The Uttar Pradesh Official
Languages Act was enacted in the year 1951, and it made Hindi the
official language in the State. In 1989, an amendment was introduced
in the Act by which Urdu was made the second official language “for
such purposes as may be notified by the State Government from
time to time.” In pursuance of powers conferred under the 1989
amendment to the 1951 Act, the State government issued a notification
on 07.10.1989 notifying the use of Urdu as a second language for
certain purposes. The Appellant therein challenged the Constitutional
validity of the 1989 amendment to the 1951 Act before the Allahabad
High Court. The Division Bench which heard the matter delivered
a split verdict. As a result, the matter was referred to a third judge,
who held that the 1989 Amendment to the 1951 Act did not suffer
from any infirmity and was not unconstitutional. The appellant then
filed an SLP before this Court, against the decision of the High Court,
where the matter was ultimately referred to a Constitution Bench of
Five Judges, which upheld the Constitutional validity of the 1989
Amendment, and the addition of Urdu as a second language was
held to be valid.
25. According to the appellant therein, Article 345 gives two options to
the States: adoption of any one or more of the languages in use
in the State, or, adoption of Hindi as official language. Therefore, if
the State of Uttar Pradesh has already adopted Hindi as its official
language by the 1951 Act, it cannot adopt any other language as
its official language. In other words, once Hindi is adopted as an
official language no other language can be added as another official
language. This is how, according to the appellant, Article 345 ought
to be read. This Court did not accept this argument and held that
mere adoption of Hindi by the State as its official language does
not bar the State legislature from adopting other languages as its
official language under Article 345 of the Constitution. It was thus
observed:
638 [2025] 4 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

“23. Part XVII of the Constitution as its scheme suggests is
accommodative. After all, language policies are constructs
and they change over time.
24. The plain language of Article 345 which empowers
the State Legislature to make law for adoption of one
or more of the languages in use in the State leaves no
manner of doubt that such power may be exercised
by the State Legislature from time to time. A different
intention does not appear from the plain language of
Article 345. We do not find any indication that the power
can be exercised by the State Legislature only once
and that power gets exhausted if the State Legislature
adopts Hindi as the official language of the State. In
our view, the State Legislature is at liberty to exercise
its discretion under Article 345 from time to time for
specified purpose. It does not appear to us that Hindi
once adopted as official language of the State in exercise
of its power by the State Legislature under Article 345,
the State Legislature ceases to have any law-making
power under Article 345…”
It was held that adoption of a particular language, say Hindi, as the
official language by a State legislature does not bar that legislature
from again invoking powers under Article 345 to designate yet
another language(s) as the official language(s) if it is required. The
argument of the appellant was that when more than one language
is in use in a State, then the legislature of that State can adopt one
or more than one of such languages or just Hindi as its language. All
the same, this Court did not accept this interpretation of Article 345.
26. Considering the practical necessity, various States have responded
to the demand for the inclusion of another language as its official
language. Following are the States and Union Territories in India
which have more than one official language, or permit the use of
more than language for certain official purposes2:

2 Data taken from Official Languages Acts passed by State Legislatures as well as other Government
sources for some Union Territories. However, there might be subsequent repeals/amendments in
the above-mentioned legislations which might have been inadvertently missed by the author of this
judgment.
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 639

Mrs. Varshatai w/o. Sh. Sanjay bagade v. The State of Maharashtra through
its Secretary, Ministry of Law and Judiciary, Mantralaya, Mumbai and Ors. Etc.

S. State/Union Official Other official
No. Territory Language(s) language(s)/
language(s)
permitted to be
used for official
purposes
1. Andhra Pradesh Telugu Urdu, English
2. Assam Assamese Bengali, Bodo,
English
3. Bihar Hindi Urdu
4. Chhattisgarh Hindi Chattissgarhi
5. Goa Konkani Marathi, English
6. Gujarat Gujarati, Hindi
7. Haryana Hindi Punjabi, English
8. Himachal Hindi Sanskrit
Pradesh
9. Jharkhand Hindi Magahi, Bhojpuri,
Maithili, Angika,
Bhumij, Urdu,
Santhali, Mundari,
Ho, Khadiya,
Kurukh, Kurmali,
Khortha, Nagpuri,
Panchparganiya,
Bengali, Odia
10. Karnataka Kannada English
11. Kerala Malayalam English, Tamil,
Kannada
12. Maharashtra Marathi English
13. Manipur Manipuri English
(Meiteilon)
14. Meghalaya English Khasi, Garo
15. Mizoram Mizo English
640 [2025] 4 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

16. Odisha Odia English
17. Punjab Punjabi English
18. Rajasthan Hindi English
19. Sikkim English, Nepali, Limbu, Sunuwar,
Bhutia, Lepcha Tamang, Bhujel,
Newari, Rai,
Gurung, Mangar,
Sherpa
20. Tamil Nadu Tamil English
21. Telangana Telugu Urdu, English
22. Tripura Bengali, English
Kokborok
23. Uttar Pradesh Hindi Urdu
24. Uttarakhand Hindi Sanskrit
25. West Bengal Bengali Urdu, Hindi,
Odia, Punjabi,
Santhali, Nepali,
Kurukh, Kamtapuri,
Rajbanshi, Kurmali,
Telugu, English
26. Andaman and Hindi English
Nicobar Islands
27. Dadra and Nagar Hindi, English Gujarati
Haveli and
Daman and Diu
28. Delhi Hindi Urdu, Punjabi,
English
29. Jammu and Kashmiri,
Kashmir Dogri, Hindi,
Urdu, English
30. Ladakh Hindi English
31. Puducherry Tamil Telugu, Malayalam,
English
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 641

Mrs. Varshatai w/o. Sh. Sanjay bagade v. The State of Maharashtra through
its Secretary, Ministry of Law and Judiciary, Mantralaya, Mumbai and Ors. Etc.

27. The prejudice against Urdu stems from the misconception that Urdu
is alien to India. This opinion, we are afraid, is incorrect as Urdu,
like Marathi and Hindi, is an Indo-Aryan language. It is a language
which was born in this land. Urdu developed and flourished in India
due to the need for people belonging to different cultural milieus who
wanted to exchange ideas and communicate amongst themselves.
Over the centuries, it attained ever greater refinement and became
the language of choice for many acclaimed poets.
28. The debate surrounding languages is not new. In fact, it started
even before independence, and the need for greater use of Indian
languages was also recognized during the independence movement.
It was accepted by a large number of Indians that the language which
is a product of amalgamation of various Indian languages such as
Hindi, Urdu and Punjabi, is what is known as ‘Hindustani’, which a
large mass of this country speaks. In its Cocanada (Kakinada) Session
of 1923, the Indian National Congress recognized amendments to
its Constitution to the effect that the Congress would use Hindustani,
English or provincial languages in its proceedings. The relevant
portion of the resolution reads as follows:
“Article XXXIII
The proceedings of the Congress shall be conducted, as
far as possible, in Hindustani, English or the language of
the province may also be used.” 3
29. In the same Session, it was recognized that the lack of cooperation
between different communities due to mutual suspicion about each
other’s aims and intentions is one of the obstacles to attainment of
Swaraj in India. To overcome these difficulties, different communities,
through their representatives, signed the Indian National Pact
resolving that Swaraj is the aim of all the communities. This Pact
recognized Hindustani as the national language of India. The relevant
portion of the said Pact reads as under:
“(3) Hindustani shall be the national language of India.
It shall be permissible to write it in either script, Urdu or
Deonagari.” 4

3 A.M Zaidi, The Encyclopaedia of Indian National Congress-Vol-8: 1921-1924: india at the cross-roads at
p. 635.
4 The Indian National Pact, Clause 3.
642 [2025] 4 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

30. The Congress Constitution of 1934 contained a provision which said
that all proceedings of the Congress shall be in Hindustani and much
like the present Indian Constitution, the Congress Constitution also
carved out a proviso which provided for the use of English or any
provincial language, in case a speaker is unable to speak in Hindustani
or the Congress President permits him/her to do so. Article XVII of
this Congress Constitution thus came to read as under:
“Article XVII LANGUAGE
(a) The proceedings of the Congress, the All-India
Congress Committee and the Working Committee
shall ordinarily be conducted in Hindustani; the
English language or any provincial language may be
used if the speaker is unable to speak in Hindustani
or whenever permitted by the President.
(b) The proceedings of the Provincial Congress
Committees shall ordinarily be conducted in the
language of the province concerned. Hindustani may
also be used.”5
31. This resolve is also reflected in an essay authored by the first Prime
Minister of the country, Jawaharlal Nehru, where he wrote as follows:
“Language is alleged to divide India into innumerable
compartments; we are told by the census that there are
222 languages or dialects in India. I suppose the census
of the United States mentions a very large number of
languages; the German census, I think, mentions over
sixty. But most of these languages are spoken by small
groups of people, or are dialects. In India, the absence
of mass education has fostered the growth of dialects.
As a matter of fact, India is a singularly unified area so
far as languages are concerned. Altogether in the vast
area of India, there are a dozen languages and these are
closely allied to each other. They fall into two groups— the
Indo-Aryan languages of the north and center and west,
and the Dravidian languages of the east and south. The

5 A.M Zaidi, The Encyclopaedia of Indian National Congress-Vol-10: 1930-1935: The Battle for swaraj at
p. 442.
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 643

Mrs. Varshatai w/o. Sh. Sanjay bagade v. The State of Maharashtra through
its Secretary, Ministry of Law and Judiciary, Mantralaya, Mumbai and Ors. Etc.

Indo-Aryan languages derived from Sanskrit and anyone
who knows one of them finds it easy to learn another. The
Dravidian languages are different, but each one of them
contains fifty per cent, or more words from the Sanskrit.
The dominant language in India is: Hindustani (Hindi
or Urdu) which is already spoken by a huge block
of a hundred and twenty million people and is partly
understood by scores of millions of others. This
language is bound to become the all-India medium
of communication, not displacing the great provincial
languages, but as a compulsory second language.
With mass education on behalf of the state this will not be
difficult. Already due to talkies and the radio, the range of
Hindustani is spreading fast. The writer of this article has
had occasion to address great mass audiences all over
India and almost always, except in the south, he has used
Hindustani and been understood. However numerous the
difficult problems which India has to solve, the language
problem clearly is not one of them. It already is well on
the way to solution.” 6
(Emphasis provided)

Nehru acknowledged that Hindustani is bound to become the all-India
medium of communication, since it is spoken by a large number of
people in the country. At the same time, he recognized the importance
of provincial languages by emphasizing that the intention was not to
replace provincial languages with Hindustani. Thus, he put forward
the idea of Hindustani as a compulsory second language.
32. Based on the developments recounted above, it is clear that the
country was moving forward to accept Hindustani as its National
language during our struggle for independence. Even the Constituent
Assembly’s Rules of Procedure laid down that the business of the
Assembly would be transacted in Hindustani, or English. Again, a
proviso similar to the one contained in our present Constitution7
was incorporated, stating that in cases where a member is unable

6 Jawaharlal Nehru, The Unity of India, Foreign Affairs, Volume 16, No. 2 (Jan. 1938), pp. 231-243.
7 See Articles 120 and 210 of the Constitution of India.
644 [2025] 4 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

to express himself/herself in Hindustani or English, he/she may,
with the permission of the President, speak in their mother tongue8.
33. Why was it then that Hindustani was not recognized as an official
language of the Union? It is now clear that the main reason behind
this was the partition of the nation in 1947 and adoption of Urdu by
Pakistan as its National language. The ultimate victim was Hindustani.
34. Granville Austin explains in detail the discussions on the language
issue in India before the Constituent Assembly in particular, and in
the country in general, before and after partition. It is Chapter 12 of
his first book9 which throws considerable light on this contentious
and delicate national issue. It was a pragmatic hope nurtured by
our national leaders in post-independent India and by the majority
of the members of the Constituent Assembly that Hindustani had a
very bright prospect of becoming the national language. The early
debates in the Constituent Assembly indicated a compromise on this
issue between the hardliners from both sides i.e. between supporters
of Sanskritized Hindi and proponents of liberal mixture of Urdu and
Hindi known as ‘Hindustani’. But then comes a strong rupture in
the form of the partition of India, and amongst its several fallouts,
one vital blow was given to Urdu and Hindustani both. This is what
Granville Austin has to say here:
“…Partition killed Hindustani and endangered the position
of English and the provincial languages in the Constitution.
‘If there had been no Partition, Hindustani would without
doubt have been the national language,’ K. Santhanam
believed, ‘but the anger against the Muslims turned
against Urdu. Assembly members ‘felt that the Muslims
having caused the division of the country, the whole issue
of national language must be reviewed afresh’, said an
article in The Hindustan Times. Having seen the dream of
unity shattered by Partition, by the ‘treachery’ of the Urdu
(Hindustani) speakers, the Hindi extremists became even
more firmly committed to Hindi and to achieving national
unity through it. Speakers of the provincial languages must

8 Granville Austin, The Indian Constitution: Cornerstone of a Nation, Oxford University Press (New Delhi;
2000) at p. 274.
9 Granville Austin, The Indian Constitution: Cornerstone of a Nation, Oxford University Press (New Delhi;
2000).
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 645

Mrs. Varshatai w/o. Sh. Sanjay bagade v. The State of Maharashtra through
its Secretary, Ministry of Law and Judiciary, Mantralaya, Mumbai and Ors. Etc.

learn Hindi and the regional languages must take second
place, the Hindi-wallahs believed. And as to English, it
should go as Urdu had gone. Were not both un-Indian?”10
35. Be that as it may, it is a fact now that Hindustani is not the official
language under the Constitution. Under Article 343 of the Constitution,
Hindi is the official language, while the use of English was made
permissible for official purposes for a period of fifteen years. But this
does not mean that Hindustan and Urdu have become extinct. This
was never the intention of the framers of the Constitution. In a speech
to the Constituent Assembly on the language issue, Jawaharlal Nehru
emphasized that the official language i.e. Hindi shall be enriched by
borrowing the vocabulary from Urdu. His exact words were:
“…We find that in a particular subject or type of subjects
we speak better in Hindi than in Urdu and in another
type of subjects Urdu suits us better; it suits the genius
of that subject a little better. My point is that I was both
these instruments which strengthen Hindi that is going to
be developed as our official and National language of the
country. Let us keep in touch with the people…”11
This spirit is embodied in Article 351 of the Constitution, which reads
as follows:
“351. Directive for development of the Hindi language
It shall be the duty of the Union to promote the spread
of the Hindi language, to develop it so that it may serve
as a medium of expression for all the elements of the
composite culture of India and to secure its enrichment by
assimilating without interfering with its genius, the forms,
style and expressions used in Hindustani and in the other
languages of India specified in the Eighth Schedule, and by
drawing, wherever necessary or desirable, for its vocabulary,
primarily on Sanskrit and secondarily on other languages.”
36. Both Gandhi and Nehru were great proponents of Hindustani. Only
a few months before his death Gandhi wrote:

10 Granville Austin, The Indian Constitution: Cornerstone of a Nation, Oxford University Press (New Delhi;
2000) at pp. 277-278.
11 Constituent Assembly Debates, Vol IX at p. 1415.
646 [2025] 4 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

“This Hindustani (Gandhi wrote) should be neither
Sanskritized Hindi nor Persianised Urdu but a happy
combination of both. It should also freely admit words
wherever necessary from the different regional languages
and also assimilate words from foreign languages, provided
that they can mix well and easily with our national language.
Thus our national language must develop into a rich and
powerful instrument capable of expressing the whole
gamut of human thoughts and feelings. To confine oneself
exclusively to Hindi or Urdu would be a crime against
intelligence and the spirit of patriotism.” 12
37. Even today, the language used by the common people of the country
is replete with words of the Urdu language, even if one is not
aware of it. It would not be incorrect to say that one cannot have a
day-to-day conversation in Hindi without using words of Urdu or
words derived from Urdu. The word ‘Hindi’ itself comes from the
Persian word ‘Hindavi’! This exchange of vocabulary flows both ways
because Urdu also has many words borrowed from other Indian
languages, including Sanskrit.
38. Interestingly, Urdu words have a heavy influence on Court parlance,
both in criminal and civil law. From Adalat13 to halafnama14 to peshi,15
the influence of Urdu is writ large in the language of the Indian Courts.
For that matter, even though the official language of the Supreme
Court and the High Courts as per Article 348 of the Constitution is
English, yet many Urdu words continue to be used in this Court till
date. These include vakalatnama, dasti, etc.
39. Viewed from another perspective, the Urdu language has come to
be adopted by many States and Union Territories in India as the
second official language in exercise of powers conferred by Article
345 of the Constitution16. The States which have Urdu as one of the
official languages are Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, Jharkhand, Telangana,
Uttar Pradesh, and West Bengal, while the Union Territories which

12 Granville Austin, The Indian Constitution: Cornerstone of a Nation, Oxford University Press (New Delhi;
2000) at p. 272.
13 Adalat means ‘Court’.
14 Halafnama means ‘affidavit’.
15 Peshi means ‘appearance’ or ‘presence’.
16 Please refer to the previous paragraphs of this judgment.
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 647

Mrs. Varshatai w/o. Sh. Sanjay bagade v. The State of Maharashtra through
its Secretary, Ministry of Law and Judiciary, Mantralaya, Mumbai and Ors. Etc.

follow this practice are Delhi and Jammu and Kashmir.
40. Even from a Constitutional perspective, the use of language for
official purposes is not according to any rigid formula. For example,
Article 120 of the Constitution prescribes Hindi or English as the
official language of Parliament, but the proviso to the said Article
empowers the Presiding Officer of the House to allow a member
to express themselves in their mother tongue, if they do not know
Hindi or English. The same principle applies to State legislatures
vide Article 210 of the Constitution.
41. It may also be of same interest to know that when we criticize Urdu,
we are in a way also criticizing Hindi, as according to linguists and
literary scholars, Urdu and Hindi are not two languages, but it is
one language. True, Urdu is mainly written in Nastaliq17 and Hindi
in Devnagri; but then scripts do not make a language. What makes
languages distinct is their syntax, their grammar and their phonology.
Urdu and Hindi have broad similarities in all these counts. The
noted Urdu scholar Gyan Chand Jain, in Urdu, Hindi ya Hindustani
published in magazine Hindustani Zaban (Jan-April 1974), writes:
“It is absolutely clear that Urdu and Hindi are not two
separate languages. To call them two languages is to
belie all principles of linguistics and to deceive oneself and
others….Even though Urdu literature and Hindi literature
are two different and independent literatures, Urdu and
Hindi are not two different languages…Enumerating Urdu
and Hindi as two languages, in the Indian Constitution, is
political expediency, not a linguistic reality”18
Professor Gyan Chand Jain does take into consideration the fact that
in our Constitution, Urdu and Hindi are mentioned as two different
languages, but that the author says, “is political expediency, not a
linguistic reality.” According to Amrit Rai, “…their recognition as two
separate languages under the Constitution need not deter linguists
from questioning the scientific validity of their separation”.19

17 Urdu written in Perso-Arabic script in calligraphic style is called ‘Nastaliq’.
18 Our source for this extract is Amrit Rai, A House Divided: The Origin and Development of Hindi/Hindavi,
Oxford University Press (1984) at p. 3.
19 Amrit Rai, A House Divided: The Origin and Development of Hindi/Hindavi, Oxford University Press
(1984) at p. 3.
648 [2025] 4 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

42. The noted Hindi scholar Ram Vilas Sharma, who is a strong supporter
of Hindi as a national language, in his book Bharat ki Bhasha
Samasya writes:
“Hindi-Urdu are not two separate languages; they are
basically one and the same. Their pronouns, verbs, and
basic vocabulary are the same. There are no two other
languages in the world whose pronouns and verbs are one
hundred per cent the same. Russian and Ukrainian are much
akin to each other but even they are not so closely alike.” 20
43. Another outstanding Urdu scholar, and a leader of the Urdu movement,
Abdul Haq, in his book Qadim Urdu says:
“It is a clear fact and needs no further adumbration that the
language we speak and write and call by the name ‘Urdu’
today is derived from Hindi and constituted of Hindi” 21
44. If there are dissimilarities, there are plenty between Hindi and high
Hindi, like there are between Urdu and high Urdu. But close similarities
exist between Hindi and Urdu, when these are spoken day-to-day.
We fall back again on Gyan Chand Jain, who writes:
“…It is a fact that the difference between average Urdu
writing and average Hindi writing is not as great as the
difference between average Urdu and difficult Urdu, or that
between average Hindi and difficult Hindi. In the literature
of every language, be it Urdu or Hindi or English, one finds
different levels of language according to the stock of words
used- on the one hand, the altogether simple language of
everyday speech, and on the other a language difficult to
comprehend, weighed down by words from the classical
language or from an alien language…” 22
45. This is not an occasion to have an elaborate discussion on the rise
and fall of Urdu, but this much can be stated that this fusion of the

20 Our source for this extract is Amrit Rai, A House Divided: The Origin and Development of Hindi/Hindavi,
Oxford University Press (1984) at p. 6.
21 Our source for this extract is Amrit Rai, A House Divided: The Origin and Development of Hindi/Hindavi,
Oxford University Press (1984) at p. 6.
22 Gyan Chand Jain, Urdu Hindi ya Hindustani, Hindustani Zaban (Jan-April, 1974). However, our source
for the extract is Amrit Rai, A House Divided: The Origin and Development of Hindi/Hindavi, Oxford
University Press (1984) at p. 4.
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 649

Mrs. Varshatai w/o. Sh. Sanjay bagade v. The State of Maharashtra through
its Secretary, Ministry of Law and Judiciary, Mantralaya, Mumbai and Ors. Etc.

two languages Hindi and Urdu met a roadblock in the form of the
puritans on both sides and Hindi became more Sanskritized and
Urdu more Persian. A schism exploited by the colonial powers in
dividing the two languages on religion. Hindi was now understood
to be the language of Hindus and Urdu of the Muslims,23 which is
such a pitiable digression from reality; from unity in diversity; and
the concept of universal brotherhood.
46. Coming to the present case, it must be stated that a Municipal Council
is there to provide services to the local community of the area and
cater to their immediate day-to-day needs. If people or a group of
people, residing within the area covered by the Municipal Council
are familiar with Urdu, then there should not be any objection if Urdu
is used in addition to the official language i.e. Marathi, at least on
the signboard of the Municipal Council. Language is a medium for
exchange of ideas that brings people holding diverse views and
beliefs closer and it should not become a cause of their division.
47. And these are the words of our former Chief Justice of India, M. N.
Venkatachaliah, who makes a fervent plea for the preservation of
Urdu, while speaking in a seminar in Delhi:
“The Urdu language has a special place in India. The
Urdu language conjures up and inspires deeply emotive
sentiments and thoughts from the sublimity of the mystic to
the romantic and the earthy, of perfumes of camaraderie,
of music and life’s wistfulness and a whole range of human
relationships. Its rich literature and lore is a treasure house
of the noblest thoughts on life’s mysteries. Urdu is not
simply one of the languages of this country. It is a culture
and civilisation in itself…But today this great culture needs
urgent measures for its very survival…The richness of
Urdu culture needs to be restored to its pristine glory.” 24
48. Our misconceptions, perhaps even our prejudices against a language
have to be courageously and truthfully tested against the reality,
which is this great diversity of our nation: Our strength can never be

23 See Amrit Rai, A House Divided: The Origin and Development of Hindi/Hindavi, Oxford University Press
(1984) at pp. 8-13 and 285-289.
24 See Danial Latifi, Urdu in UP, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 36, No.7 (Feb 17-23, 2001), pp. 533-
535 at p. 535.
650 [2025] 4 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

our weakness. Let us make friends with Urdu and every language.
If Urdu was to speak for herself, she would say:
“urdu hai mirā naam maiñ ‘Khusrav’ kī pahelī
kyuuñ mujh ko banāte ho ta.assub kā nishāna
maiñ ne to kabhī ḳhud ko musalmāñ nahīñ maanā
dekhā thā kabhī maiñ ne bhī ḳhushiyoñ kā zamāna
apne hī vatan meñ huuñ magar aaj akelī
urdu hai mirā naam maiñ ‘Khusrav’ kī pahelī” 25

Urdu is my name, I am the riddle of ‘Khusrav’
Do not hold me for your prejudices
I never considered myself a Muslim
I too have seen happier times
I feel like an outsider in my homeland today
Urdu is my name, I am the riddle of ‘Khusrav’
49. The display of an additional language cannot, by itself, be said to be
in violation of the provisions of the 2022 Act. The High Court while
reaching the above findings had considered the relevant provisions
of law. We completely agree with the reasoning given by the High
Court that there is no prohibition on the use of Urdu under the 2022
Act or in any provision of law. The entire case of the appellant to
our mind is based on a misconception of law. We see no reason
therefore to interfere in the present case. These appeals are liable
to be dismissed, and are hereby dismissed.
50. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.

Result of the case: Appeals dismissed.

†
Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain

25 Extract from a Nazm by poet Iqbal Ashhar