A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The Supreme Court in Mrs. Varshatai w/o. Sh. Sanjay Bagade v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors., Civil Appeal Nos. 5187–5188 of 2025 (15 April 2025), addressed whether the display of Urdu on the signboard of the Municipal Council, Patur (Akola district) violated statutory or constitutional prescriptions after enactment of the Maharashtra Local Authorities (Official Languages) Act, 2022.

The appellant, a former municipal council member, challenged the council’s resolution that displayed the municipal name in Marathi at the top and Urdu beneath, contending that official work and public-facing displays must be exclusively in Marathi in view of the 2022 Act and related government directions.

The Collector initially allowed the appellant’s Section 308 challenge but on revision the Divisional Commissioner set aside the Collector’s order and the High Court (Nagpur Bench) upheld the Municipal Council’s action; subsequent legislative change prompted renewed proceedings.

The Supreme Court examined the amended procedure under Section 308 of the Maharashtra Municipal Council, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Township Act, 1965, the scope and effect of the 2022 Act, and constitutional principles concerning official languages notably Article 345, Article 351 and the placement of Marathi and Urdu within Schedule VIII.

The Court affirmed the High Court’s conclusion: the 2022 Act does not prohibit display of an additional Schedule VIII language on signboards so long as Marathi remains the official language for the specified purposes; the municipal purpose here was communication to a multilingual local population.

The judgment also engages an extended cultural and constitutional argument: language is communication and culture, not religion; Urdu is an indigenous Indo-Aryan language with historical adoption by several States as an official or secondary official language; prejudice against Urdu stems from misconception. The appeals were dismissed. This analysis relies exclusively on the judgment as supplied.

Keywords: Urdu, Marathi, Maharashtra Local Authorities (Official Languages) Act, 2022, Section 308 (Maharashtra 1965 Act), Article 345, Schedule VIII, multilingual public communication.

B) CASE DETAILS

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The litigation springs from a narrow factual trigger: a municipal signboard at Municipal Council, Patur set out the name in Marathi with translation below in Urdu, a practice said to date back to 1956. The appellant viewed the addition of Urdu as inconsistent with the State’s language policy and the 2022 Act that declared Marathi the language to be used by local authorities for official and public-facing matters.

The statutory and procedural history complicates the dispute: an internal municipal resolution (14.02.2020) supported bilingual display; the appellant approached the Collector under Section 308 (1965 Act) and obtained an order directing exclusive use of Marathi in government proceedings; the Divisional Commissioner in revision set aside the Collector’s order; the High Court (first round) dismissed the writ petition; meanwhile the appellant filed an SLP to this Court and, during pendency, the Legislature enacted the 2022 Act.

This Court’s earlier order noted the 2022 Act and allowed remedy against it by appropriate proceedings, thus returning the matter to the High Court where a Division Bench considered the 2022 Act’s scope.

The High Court found the 2022 Act ensured Marathi as official language but did not forbid use of an additional language on signboards where Marathi remained primary; it quashed a communication that sought to prohibit the bilingual display and dismissed other challenges.

The Supreme Court was called upon to decide whether the 2022 Act or other law proscribed display of Urdu in addition to Marathi, and whether the appellant’s application under amended Section 308 was maintainable. The Court also engaged in a wider constitutional and cultural exegesis addressing the historical status of Urdu and constitutional accommodation of multiple languages.

The judgment treats language primarily as communication and culture rejecting the conflation of language with religion and deploys Article 345 jurisprudence (including the Uttar Pradesh Hindi Sahitya Sammelan precedent) to show States may adopt or permit more than one official language; the Court emphasized that Schedule VIII status grants parity of sorts and that the 2022 Act contains enabling exceptions (e.g., use of English) that show the Act’s object is operational efficiency, not prohibition of other Schedule VIII languages on public signboards.

The Court ultimately dismissed the appeals. These factual and legislative sequences are recorded in the judgment and are central to legal reasoning.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

The Municipal Council, Patur, had historically displayed its name in Marathi with an Urdu translation since at least 1956 and, in 2020, by resolution (14.02.2020) reaffirmed bilingual display in view of a local population and council composition familiar with Urdu.

The appellant, a former member, objected to use of Urdu and moved under Section 308 of the 1965 Act before the Collector (Akola), seeking suspension of the council’s resolution; the Collector allowed the application on 15.12.2020 citing government directions to use Rajbhasha Marathi 100% in government proceedings.

Members of the council challenged the Collector’s order by revision under Section 318 before the Divisional Commissioner (Amravati), who set aside the Collector’s order on 30.04.2021. The appellant then filed Writ Petition No. 2219 of 2021 before the Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench).

The High Court initially dismissed the petition on 30.06.2021, recognizing Urdu as included in Schedule VIII, and upholding the council’s resolution; the appellant filed SLP to the Supreme Court (SLP (Civil) No. 13820 of 2021). During the SLP’s pendency, the Maharashtra Legislature enacted the Maharashtra Local Authorities (Official Languages) Act, 2022 (Maharashtra Act No. XXXI of 2022), mandating Marathi for official matters and public-facing displays by local authorities.

This development led the Supreme Court to observe that the High Court’s earlier order might be unsustainable in light of the new Act, and remitted the matter for fresh consideration with liberty to challenge the Act by appropriate proceedings. The High Court Division Bench (10.04.2024) concluded that while the 2022 Act declares Marathi as official language for local authorities, it does not prohibit use of an additional Schedule VIII language on signboards alongside Marathi, and quashed an impugned administrative communication seeking to prohibit such use; the writ challenging the municipal resolution was dismissed.

The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court’s approach: the 2022 Act is primarily about ensuring Marathi is used for the Council’s business and public communications, but it does not proscribe display of another Schedule VIII language; further, procedural limitations in Section 308 post-2018 amendment meant the original Collector order was vulnerable because the Collector’s power in such matters is triggered upon reference from the Chief Officer within three days, a requirement not met when the appellant directly applied.

These fact-and-procedure determinations are recorded carefully in the judgment and underpin the Court’s conclusion to dismiss the appeals.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i. Whether display of the Municipal Council’s name in Urdu (in addition to Marathi) on a municipal building signboard violates the Maharashtra Local Authorities (Official Languages) Act, 2022 or any other provision of law?

ii. Whether an application under Section 308 of the Maharashtra Municipal Council, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Township Act, 1965 by an individual (not the Chief Officer) is maintainable after the 2018 amendment to Section 308(1)?

iii. Whether the State’s declaration of Marathi as the official language for local authorities precludes use of other Schedule VIII languages for public-facing signage or communications?

iv. Whether the appellant’s claim rests on any misapprehension of constitutional principles concerning Schedule VIII languages and Article 345 jurisprudence (including the precedents that permit States to adopt more than one official language)?

F) PETITIONER / APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

The counsel for the Petitioner/Appellant submitted that the enactment of the Maharashtra Local Authorities (Official Languages) Act, 2022 mandates exclusive use of Marathi for signboards, nameplates, notice boards and all other display matters pertaining to public interface by local authorities; therefore any addition of Urdu is expressly forbidden.

It was urged that the Collector’s initial order (15.12.2020) directing exclusive use of Rajbhasha Marathi was lawful and aimed at uniform language policy; continuing bilingual display undermines the State’s effort to promote Marathi as per government circulars and the 2022 Act’s object.

The appellant contended that the municipal resolution authorizing Urdu was ultra vires and unlawful, and that individual citizens affected by the municipal resolution have locus to seek suspension under Section 308 of the 1965 Act. The appellant’s team argued that local authorities cannot, by municipal resolution or local practice, circumvent statutory directives designed to protect and promote the official language of the State, particularly where the legislature has used mandatory language in the 2022 Act.

The submission also advanced a public-order/identity claim: official visibility of a non-Marathi (here, Urdu) script on municipal assets dilutes the State’s cultural and administrative cohesiveness and is, therefore, impermissible. These submissions framed the legal controversy and impelled judicial examination of statutory scope, constitutional permissibility and procedural propriety under Section 308 as amended.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

The counsel for Respondents (members of the Municipal Council and State respondents) submitted that the action of the Municipal Council in displaying Urdu below the Marathi inscription was intended solely for effective local communication and was consistent with the Council’s democratic resolution (14.02.2020) reflecting local linguistic realities.

They contended that the 2022 Act requires Marathi to be used for official matters but does not expressly prohibit display of an additional language, particularly one enumerated in Schedule VIII of the Constitution; sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Act that enables use of English demonstrates the Act’s flexible, communicative purpose rather than a prohibitionist stance.

The respondents further argued that the Collector’s original order should not have been entertained because after the 2018 amendment to Section 308(1) the Collector’s power to suspend action is triggered only on a reference by the Chief Officer within the specified period a procedural precondition not met in the appellant’s move. They relied on constitutional jurisprudence (notably the Uttar Pradesh Hindi Sahitya Sammelan case) to show States may accommodate multiple official languages under Article 345 and that several States have adopted Urdu as a secondary official language.

Respondents stressed that municipal governance has a core duty to communicate to the local populace and the addition of Urdu advances that duty without derogating from Marathi as the official language for statutory purposes. These contentions informed the High Court and Supreme Court assessments.

H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS 

i. Article 345, Constitution of India — State legislature may adopt one or more languages in use in the State as official languages.
ii. Article 351, Constitution of India — Directive for development of the Hindi language by assimilating forms and expressions used in Hindustani and other Schedule VIII languages.
iii. Section 308, Maharashtra Municipal Council, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Township Act, 1965 — Powers to suspend execution of orders/resolutions (amended 2018: Chief Officer must refer resolution to Collector).
iv. Maharashtra Local Authorities (Official Languages) Act, 2022 — Declares Marathi official for local authorities and specifies use in public-facing matters; contains enabling provisions (e.g., for English) but does not expressly forbid use of other Schedule VIII languages on signboards.
v. Schedule VIII, Constitution of India — Lists recognized Indian languages including Marathi and Urdu.

I) JUDGEMENT

The Supreme Court (Dhulia, J.) gave leave and proceeded to consider both procedural and substantive questions. Procedurally the Court noted the 2018 amendment to Section 308(1) of the 1965 Act which removed the Collector’s broad suo motu power and made it dependent on notification by the Chief Officer within three days; hence an individual’s direct application was not maintainable and the Collector ought not to have entertained it. Substantively the Court analysed the 2022 Act and parliamentary/objective context.

The Court observed that the 2022 Act’s declared aim is to ensure Marathi functions as the official and primary medium for local authority business and public interface; however, the provision’s structure (including explicit enabling use of English in subsection (2)) shows the statute is framed around communication not around proscribing other Schedule VIII languages when used as supplementary modes of public communication.

The High Court’s ruling that the 2022 Act did not prohibit use of an additional language on signboards therefore comported with the Act’s aim. The Court placed weight on constitutional structure: Article 345 grants State legislatures competence to adopt one or more languages and is permissive and flexible; the Court cited Uttar Pradesh Hindi Sahitya Sammelan v. State of Uttar Pradesh (Constitution Bench) to confirm that adoption of one official language does not exhaust the State’s power to adopt additional languages later.

Recognizing Urdu as an indigenous, Indo-Aryan language included in Schedule VIII, the Court rejected the appellant’s implicit equation of language with religion or foreignness. The judgment contextualised Urdu historically and literarily and invoked constitutional values of tolerance and communication. Concluding, the Court held there was no statutory or constitutional bar to an additional Schedule VIII language on a municipal signboard where Marathi remained primary; the appellant’s case was based on a misconception of law. Appeals dismissed.

a. RATIO DECIDENDI

The central ratio is twofold:

(1) Procedurally, the Collector lacked jurisdiction to entertain the appellant’s direct Section 308 application after the 2018 amendment because the statutory trigger requires the Chief Officer’s reference; thus the Collector’s order in favour of the appellant was susceptible to revision.

(2) Substantively, the Maharashtra Local Authorities (Official Languages) Act, 2022 while mandating Marathi for official and public-facing matters does not expressly prohibit use of other Schedule VIII languages for additional public displays such as signboards so long as Marathi is used as required.

The statute’s enabling provisions (e.g., use of English where communication requires) illustrate the legislative intent to facilitate communication rather than to freeze linguistic diversity. The constitutional framework under Article 345 and precedent (e.g., Uttar Pradesh Hindi Sahitya Sammelan) supports States adopting multiple official languages; Schedule VIII inclusion of Urdu means its supplementary use on a municipal signboard is not unlawful.

The ratio prioritises communicative purpose, statutory textualism and constitutional pluralism of languages.

b. OBITER DICTA

The judgment contains extended obiter reflections: the Court powerfully rejected public prejudice equating Urdu with alienness or religion, stating language is not religion and that Urdu embodies ganga-jamuni tahzeeb. The opinion surveys historical materials (Congress sessions, Nehru/Gandhi writings, Granville Austin) to show Hindustani’s role in freedom struggle, partition’s adverse impact on Hindustani/Urdu, and the continuing mutuality between Hindi and Urdu in everyday speech.

The Court observed that many States have adopted Urdu as a second official language in exercise of Article 345, and noted the pervasiveness of Urdu vocabulary in Indian legal parlance and popular language.

These observations, though not essential to the holding, are persuasive moral and constitutional statements: public authorities should favour communication and cohesion; language policy must be tolerant; and state instruments cannot be used to denigrate linguistic minorities. The obiter emphasises constitutional values of pluralism and the cultural worth of languages.

c. GUIDELINES

1. When local authorities adopt signboards or public-facing materials, they must ensure Marathi is used in accordance with the 2022 Act for all official purposes; however, use of an additional Schedule VIII language alongside Marathi is permissible where the purpose is communicative and local demographics justify it.

2. Administrative officers (Collectors) must respect the procedural limits of Section 308(1) post-2018: applications for suspension of municipal resolutions triggering Collector powers should be initiated by the Chief Officer as required; private individuals should follow available statutory remedies (including challenging the Act where appropriate).

3. Statutory interpretation of official-language enactments must read the statute in light of constitutional values (Part XVII) and should not import prohibitions unless the text clearly so provides; enabling clauses (e.g., authorising English use) signal legislative flexibility.

4. Courts should treat language disputes with sensitivity: distinguish language from religion; assess purpose (communication vs. exclusion); and balance state interest in promoting official language against local communicative needs and Schedule VIII entitlements.

J) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The Supreme Court’s decision affirms statutory and constitutional pluralism in the sphere of language policy while insisting on procedural regularity for administrative interventions.

Legally, it clarifies that state-level official-language statutes that declare a primary official language do not automatically proscribe supplementary use of other Schedule VIII languages for public-facing communication unless the statute explicitly so provides; the judgment follows constitutional text (Article 345) and precedent (Uttar Pradesh Hindi Sahitya Sammelan) recognizing that a State may adopt more languages and that language policy is a matter of legislative discretion exercised from time to time.

Administratively, the Court’s reading of amended Section 308(1) restores the role of municipal Chief Officers in initiating suspension references and prevents direct bypassing of prescribed statutory channels by individuals. The broader cultural commentary serves as an important judicial reminder: language policy must protect communication, social cohesion and minority linguistic sensibilities; courts should resist sectarian or religious readings of linguistic practices.

Practitioners and local authorities will find this judgment a useful guidepost: emphasize Marathi in official processes as the 2022 Act requires, but retain pragmatic accommodation in public signage to serve multilingual communities provided there is no explicit statutory bar. The judgment advances constitutional values of tolerance and pluralism and curtails administrative overreach by requiring compliance with procedural triggers for intervention under municipal law.

K) REFERENCES

Important Cases Referred

1. Uttar Pradesh Hindi Sahitya Sammelan v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2014) 9 SCC 716; [2014] 13 SCR 675.

2. Mrs. Varshatai w/o. Sh. Sanjay Bagade v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors., Civil Appeal Nos. 5187–5188 of 2025, Supreme Court of India, Sudhanshu Dhulia, J., 15 Apr. 2025.

Important Statutes & Constitutional Provisions

3. Constitution of India (Articles 120, 210, 343, 345, 348, 351; Part XVII; Schedule VIII).

4. Maharashtra Municipal Council, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Township Act, 1965 (ss. 308, 318; amendment to Section 308(1) in 2018).

5. Maharashtra Local Authorities (Official Languages) Act, 2022 (Maharashtra Act No. XXXI of 2022).

6. Uttar Pradesh Official Languages Act, 1951 (referred in comparative discussion).

Secondary Sources Cited in Judgment

7. Granville Austin, The Indian Constitution: Cornerstone of a Nation (Oxford Univ. Press, 2000).

8. Jawaharlal Nehru, “The Unity of India,” Foreign Affairs, Vol. 16, No. 2 (Jan. 1938).

9. Amrit Rai, A House Divided: The Origin and Development of Hindi/Hindavi (Oxford Univ. Press, 1984).