Supreme Court holds use of an additional language on municipal signboard not barred by Maharashtra law; appeals dismissed

A Bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and K. Vinod Chandran heard appeals against a challenge to the use of Urdu on the signboard of the Municipal Council, Patur (Akola), and related orders under the Maharashtra Municipal Council, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Township Act, 1965 and the Maharashtra Local Authorities (Official Languages) Act, 2022. The dispute raised both a procedural question under Section 308 of the 1965 Act and the substantive question whether the 2022 Act prohibited display of any language other than Marathi on local authority signboards.

The Court dismissed the appeals and upheld the reasoning of the Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) that the 2022 Act did not forbid the use of an additional language alongside Marathi on a municipal signboard. The Bench agreed that, after the 2018 amendment to Section 308, the Collector could exercise suspension powers only on an application moved by the Chief Officer of the Municipal Council, and that the Collector's order passed on an application by a private member was not maintainable. The Court emphasised that language is primarily a tool of communication and that Marathi and Urdu both occupy positions under the Eighth Schedule. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “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.” The Court added that “Language is not religion. Language does not even represent religion,” and reiterated that “Language is culture.”

Background

The controversy began when the appellant, a former member of the Municipal Council, objected to the new Council building’s signboard which displayed the Council’s name in Marathi on top with an Urdu translation below. The Municipal Council, by resolution dated 14.02.2020, rejected the objection by majority, noting longstanding practice and local familiarity with Urdu. The appellant filed an application under Section 308 of the 1965 Act before the Collector, which the Collector allowed on 15.12.2020 ordering exclusive use of Marathi in government proceedings. Members of the Council moved revision before the Divisional Commissioner, 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, which dismissed the petition on 30.06.2021 on the merits.

The appellant moved a Special Leave Petition before this Court. During pendency, the State enacted the Maharashtra Local Authorities (Official Languages) Act, 2022, which mandated Marathi for “public interface and public interest” of local authorities. This Court initially disposed the SLP on 29.04.2022 noting that the subsequent statute might affect the High Court’s order and left open remedies against the Act. The matter returned to the Bombay High Court, which in proceedings in 2023–2024 quashed an administrative communication that purported to prohibit any other language on signboards, holding the 2022 Act did not bar use of an additional language alongside Marathi. The High Court relied on Article 345 and relevant precedent, including the five‑judge decision in Uttar Pradesh Hindi Sahitya Sammelan v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2014), which held that a State could adopt one or more languages under Article 345.

On appeal, the Supreme Court agreed with the High Court’s construction that the 2022 Act ensured Marathi as the official language for local authorities but did not prohibit display of additional languages, particularly those listed in the Eighth Schedule. The Court also accepted the procedural objection that the Collector’s power under amended Section 308(1) could be invoked only on the Chief Officer’s application and noted the appellant’s suit “was based on a misconception of law.” The appeals were dismissed and pending applications were disposed of.

Case Details: Case No.: 2025 INSC 486; Civil Appeal/Special Leave Petitions (diary no. 24812 of 2024) Case Title: Mrs. Varshatai W/o. Sh. Sanjay Bagade v. The State of Maharashtra through its Secretary, Ministry of Law and Judiciary, Mantralaya, Mumbai and Ors. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Not indicated in the judgment For the Respondent(s): Not indicated in the judgment