Published on: 05th March 2026
Authored by: Sneha Sharma
Himachal Pradesh National Law University, Shimla
Hon’ble Judges / Coram:
Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia
Justice K. Vinod Chandran
PARTIES INVOLVED
Mrs. Varshatai Sanjay Bagade- Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra & Ors- Respondents
FACTS OF THE CASE
The case is about the Urdu language to be written on the signboard of the Municipal Council, Patur, District Akola, Maharashtra. At the top of the signboard was the name of the Municipal Council in Marathi followed by the name in Urdu.The former Municipal Council member was the appellant who was opposed to the use of Urdu arguing that as Marathi is the official language of Maharashtra, a local authority could not use another language to post a signboard.
A resolution of the Municipal Council dated 14.02.2020 rejected her objection by stating that Urdu had been being used on the signboard since 1956, and that a large portion of the local population has a background with the language.The Maharashtra Municipal Council Act, 1965, under Section 308,[1] the appellant appealed to the Collector and he suspended the resolution. The Divisional Commissioner subsequently suspended this order.
The Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) denied the writ petition filed by the appellant, who believed that Urdu was not used to break any law. The appellant resumed her challenge following the passage of the Maharashtra Local Authority (Official Languages) Act, 2022[2] and was once more rejected.The case was eventually brought to the Supreme Court of India resulting in the current ruling.
ISSUES FRAMED BY THE COURT
- Whether the display of Urdu as well as the use of Marathi in the signboard of the Municipal Council is a violation of the Maharashtra Local Authorities (Official Languages) Act, 2022?
- The issue concerning whether Section 308 of the Maharashtra Municipal Council Act, 1965 gave the Collector the power to suspend a resolution of the Municipal Council to an application made by a private citizen?
- The question of whether the declaration that Marathi is the official language of the State forbids the use of any other language to address the local audience by the local authority?
- The impugned signboard is in violation of any constitutional or statutory provisions on official language policy or not?
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE COUNSELS AND RESPONSES OF THE BENCH
ARGUMENTS OF THE APPELLANT
The appellant argued that Marathi is the official language in State of Maharashtra[3] and thus, that all the open communication by local authorities should be carried out solely in Marathi language. The argument was that the Urdu on the Municipal Council signboard signified the violation of the statutory requirement under the Maharashtra Local Authorities (Official Languages) Act, 2022 that mandates the use of Marathi in official affairs and interface to the public.
The appellant also provided that allowing the usage of Urdu destroys the position of Marathi as the official language of the State and creates a precedent against the intended results of the legislation. It was further contended that the Collector was within its rights to utilize powers provided by Section 308 of Maharashtra Municipal council Act 1965 to suspend the resolution of the Municipal Council.
ARGUMENTS OF THE RESPONDENT
The respondents claimed that the 2022 Act does not forbid the use of another language in addition to Marathi. The Act simply requires that Marathi should be adopted as the official language, but other languages should not be omitted as effective devices of communication to people.
It was argued that Urdu is a Scheduled Language in the Eighth Schedule[4] of the Constitution and its restricted use in a signboard can not be illegal and unconstitutional. The respondents further argued that the use of Section 308[5] application could not be sustained because after the amendment of 2018, only the Chief Officer of the Municipal Council could address the Collector.
RESPONSE OF THE BENCH
The Bench dismissed the arguments of the appellant and considered that the official language of Marathi does not mean exclusivity. The Court noted that the 2022 Act is in enabling nature and that nothing in it prohibits the use of any other language in addition to the Marathi language.
The Court also determined that the Collector was not entitled to listen to an application under Section 308 which had been filed by a non governmental personal. By focusing on constitutional values, the Bench pointed out that language is a means of communication and not a measure of religion and that the constitutional system of India promotes linguistic diversity and tolerance.
RATIO DECIDENDI AND OBITER DICTA
RATIO DECIDENDI
The Supreme Court determined that there is no violation of any statutory or constitutional clause when the municipality signboard uses another language on the same signboard with the official language except where that is expressly forbidden by law. The Court made it clear that Maharashtra Local Authorities (Official Languages) Act, 2022 does not require any exclusivity but only the use of Marathi in the official purposes, without preventing the use of other languages in communication with the population.
One more thing was that, in accordance with the 2018 amendment to Section 308 of the Maharashtra Municipal Council Act, 1965, the Collector can only exercise his powers on the basis of an application submitted to him by the Chief Officer of the Municipal Council. As the application in the given case was made by a private individual, it was not sustainable, which made the order of the Collector in the case to have no jurisdiction.
OBITER DICTA
The Court made important observations regarding the language, culture, and constitutional values, as language is not religion and should not be perceived through a communal prism. It noted that both the Marathi and the Urdu are Scheduled Languages contained in the Eighth Schedule which have the same constitutional status.
The Bench emphasized the multiculturalism of the Indian population and its governance should be built on tolerance, inclusion, and the ability to communicate. The Court warned on linguistic prejudice and indicated that the oppression of a language used by a group in the population contradict the constitutional values of fraternity and unity in diversity.
CONCLUSION
The ruling of the Supreme Court in Mrs. Varshatai Sanjay Bagade v. State of Maharashtra reiterates a pledge to linguistic plurality and inclusiveness guaranteed by the constitution. The Court made it clear that the pronouncement of an official language does not mean that the rest of the languages cannot or should be used, especially when they can be used to effectively communicate to the masses.
The Court avoided a limited and exclusionary interpretation of the language policy by reasoning that the Maharashtra Local Authorities (Official Languages) Act, 2022 was enabled and not prohibitory. The ruling also enhances discipline in the process because it confirms the restriction of administrative powers as contained in Section 308 of the Maharashtra Municipal Council Act, 1965.
In the end, what the decision highlights is that language is a tool of communication and not a identity or a divisive factor and such constitutional governance should capture the unity in diversity spirit, which is the hallmark of India. The ruling has become a significant precedent to linguistic intolerance and constitutional fraternity.
[1] Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats & Industrial Townships Act, No. 40 of 1965, § 308 (India).
[2] Maharashtra Local Authorities (Official Languages) Act, No. 12 of 2022 (India).
[3] INDIA CONST. art. 345.
[4] INDIA CONST. sched. VIII.
[5] Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats & Industrial Townships Act, No. 40 of 1965, § 308 (India).
