Let Us Make Friends With Every Language: Supreme Court Rejects Plea Challenging Municipal Council’s Signboard In Urdu
The Supreme Court quoted Mouloud Benzadi who said, “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.”
The Supreme Court has rejected the Civil Appeals preferred by a woman who was not pleased with the use of Urdu on the signboard of the new building of the Municipal Council, Patur in District Akola, Maharashtra.
The said board displayed "Municipal Council, Patur", in Marathi at the top, with its translation below in Urdu language.
The two-Judge Bench comprising Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice K. Vinod Chandran remarked, “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 our weakness. Let us make friends with Urdu and every language.”
The Bench quoted Mouloud Benzadi who said, “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.”
AOR Kunal Cheema represented the Appellant while AOR Aaditya Aniruddha Pande represented the Respondents.
Brief Facts
According to the Appellant, 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. 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, it 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.
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 before the Collector Akola, praying for setting aside of the Municipal Council’s resolution. This Application was allowed but some members challenged this Order before the Divisional Commissioner, Amravati. Resultantly, the challenged Order was set aside against which the Appellant filed a Writ Petition before the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench. The High Court did not consider it a case calling for any interference. This was challenged before the Apex Court, which allowed to seek a remedy. Hence, the matter was heard again by the Division Bench which dismissed the Petition. Being aggrieved, the Appellant approached the Apex Court.
Reasoning
The Supreme Court in view of the above facts, emphasised, “… Marathi and Urdu occupy the same position under Schedule VIII of the Constitution of India. … 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. What the appellant thinks may also be the thinking of many of our fellow citizens. These need to be addressed.”
The Court noted that 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. 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”, it further said.
The Court remarked that we must respect and rejoice in our diversity, including our many languages. It added that language is not just a language, it is also representative of a culture.
“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”, it also observed.
The Court said that the prejudice against Urdu stems from the misconception that Urdu is alien to India and this opinion 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”, it added.
Conclusion
Furthermore, the Court was of the view that 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.
“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”, it noted.
The Court held that the display of an additional language cannot, by itself, be said to be in violation of the provisions of the Maharashtra 8 Local Authorities (Official Languages) Act, 2022.
“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”, it concluded.
Accordingly, the Apex Court dismissed the Appeals.
Cause Title- Varshatai W/o. Sanjay Bagade v. The State of Maharashtra through its Secretary, Ministry of Law and Judiciary, Mantralaya, Mumbai and Ors. Etc. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 486)
Appearance:
Appellant: AOR Kunal Cheema, Advocates Satyajeetsingh Raghuwanshi, and Raghav Deshpande.
Respondents: AOR Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, Advocates Preet S. Phanse, and Siddharth Dharmadhikari.
