Mrs.Varshatai w/o. Sanjay Bagade v. State of Maharashtra & Ors

COURT: Supreme Court of India

JURISDICTION: Civil Appellate Jurisdiction

CASE NUMBER: Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 13820 of 2021, Diary No. 24812 of 2024

BENCH: Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia

DATE OF JUDGEMENT: 2025

INTRODUCTION:

 In India’s constitutional framework language occupies a delicate position, balancing administrative operational effectiveness with cultural pluralism. In the Constitution of India, no language has been considered as the national language; rather, each language has been given equal importance. Therefore, language plays a significant role in governing the administration. [1]Pursuant to the 2001 Census, India had a total of 122 major languages, including the 22 scheduled languages, and a total of 234 mother tongues [2]for administrative purposes, moreover the Constitution indeed delegate power to state to adopt an official language for administrative purpose, yet does not foster linguistic exclusivity. [3]The case at hand, Mrs.Varshatai w/o. Sanjay Bagade v. State of Maharashtra & Ors, heighten an important constitutional question as to whether the declaration of any official language excludes all other languages from public spheres. The case explores the legality of using Urdu on a Municipal Council signboard together with Marathi and highlights the broader constitutional commitment to linguistic pluralism.

FACTS OF THE CASE:

The argument emerged in the town of Patur, District Akola, Maharashtra, where the urban local body had displayed its signboard in two languages: i.e. Marathi (at the top) and Urdu (below it). This practice had been continued since 1956, pondering the linguistic composition of the local population.[4] The appellant, Mrs.Varshatai Bagade who was a former member of the Municipal Council raised an objection to the presence of Urdu on the signboard. According to Maharashtra Local Authorities (official languages) Act ,2022 [5]she challenged that since Marathi is the official language, the display of Urdu was prohibited. Upon this the Municipal Council passed a resolution rejecting her objection, stating that the use of Urdu was aim to carry out communication with a section of the total population and did not infringe any law. Wronged, the appellant approached the collector, who directed the removal of Urdu from the signboard. This order was thereafter set aside by the Divisional Commissioner, as a result the appellant then filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court where her petition was also dismissed. Thereafter she approached the Supreme Court of India.

ISSUES RAISED:

• The issue that was raised Infront of the Supreme Court of India are as follows:
• Whether the use of Urdu on a Municipal Council signboard is violating the Maharashtra Local Authorities (official languages) Act,2022?
• Whether declaring Marathi as the official language of the state excludes the use of any other language in public communication?
• Whether the use of Urdu on public signboards is unconstitutional or contrary to public policy?

ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES

Arguments of the petitioner (appellant)

The petitioner argued that:

• Marathi is the official language of Maharashtra and must be used exclusively by local authorities.
• The Maharashtra Local Authorities (Official Languages) Act, 2022 permits only Marathi (and English in limited circumstances) for official purposes.
• The use of Urdu on the signboard is unauthorized and illegal.
• The Collector was justified in ordering the removal of Urdu.
• Allowing multiple languages on official signboards would dilute the status of Marathi and violate legislative intent.

Arguments of the Respondents

The respondents contended that:

• Marathi is prominently displayed and continues to be the primary language.
• The 2022 Act does not contain any prohibition against using additional languages.
• Urdu is a Scheduled Language under the Eighth Schedule of the Constitution.
• Language is a medium of communication, not a symbol of religion or political ideology.
• The use of Urdu helps local residents understand public institutions and does not harm public interest.
• The practice has existed for decades without objection, indicating social acceptance.

JUDGEMENT

The supreme court ruled in favor of the respondent and dismissed the appeal and held that there is no such kind of legal prohibition on using Urdu along with Marathi. The 2022 act only makes Marathi compulsory, but it does not prohibit using other languages. It further explained what is the aim of language i.e. to communicate with people not to divide them. Thus, language is not religion and Urdu does not belong to any religion. The court clarified that Urdu is an Indian language and is recognized under the Eighth Schedule of the constitution and therefore it cannot be declared unconstitutional if used in public communication.

Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, speaking for the Bench, noted that India’s constitutional framework is founded on linguistic diversity and inclusiveness. Accordingly, the Supreme Court concluded that the Municipal Council acted within its legal authority and that the use of Urdu on the signboard neither infringes constitutional provisions nor violates statutory law. The appeal was dismissed as being devoid of merit.

CRITICAL ANALYSIS

The judgement in Varshatai w/o. Sanjay Bagade v. State of Maharashtra standout as a significant reaffirmation of India’s constitutional commitment to linguistic diversity and inclusiveness. The Supreme Court correctly concluded that the Municipal Council acted within its legal authority and that the use of Urdu on the signboard neither infringes constitutional provisions nor violates statutory law. The Court’s reasoning is consistent with the constitutional framework under Articles 343 to 351, which promotes linguistic diversity. By recognizing Urdu as a Scheduled Language under the Eighth Schedule, the Court reaffirmed that language in India is a means of communication rather than a marker of religion or ideology. The judgment also aligns with earlier precedents, particularly U.P. Hindi Sahitya Sammelan v. State of U.P. (2014), which adopted an inclusive approach to language policy. Allowing additional languages alongside the official language enhances public participation without undermining the status of the official language.

Overall, the judgment strikes a balance between statutory interpretation and constitutional morality, reinforcing India’s pluralistic and democratic character.

[1] Constitution of India arts 343–351.

[2] Office of the Registrar General and Census Commissioner, India, Census of India 2001: Language (Government of India 2001).

[3] Constitution of India art 345.

[4] Mrs Varshatai w/o Sanjay Bagade v State of Maharashtra and Others (Supreme Court of India, Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No 13820 of 2021, judgment dated 2025).

[5] Maharashtra Local Authorities (Official Languages) Act 2022