Mere display of additional language does not amount to a violation of the Maharashtra Local Authorities Act 2022

  1. Home
  2. /
  3. Publications
  4. /
  5. Case Snippets
  6. /
  7. Mere display of...

Varshatai v. State of Maharashtra (2025 INSC 486)
Date of Judgment: 15 April 2025

In Varshatai v. State of Maharashtra (2025 INSC 486), the Hon’ble Supreme Court addressed whether the Maharashtra Local Authorities (Official Languages) Act, 2022, prohibits the use of Urdu as an additional language on a municipal signboard. The dispute arose after the Municipal Council of Patur displayed its name in both Marathi and Urdu, which the appellant contested, arguing exclusive use of Marathi was mandated and any

The Court upheld the Hon’ble Bombay High Court’s view, holding that there is no statutory bar against using Urdu on such signage. Justice Dhulia, writing for the bench, emphasized that language is a tool for communication and not division. The Court highlighted India’s linguistic diversity and cultural plurality, noting that Urdu, like Marathi, is an Indian language that came into existence out of cultural confluence.

Referring to Article 345 and past precedent of a five-judge Bench decision in the case of  Uttar Pradesh Hindi Sahitya Sammelan v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2014) 9 SCC 716, (UP Hindi Sahitya Sammelan), the Court reiterated that states can allow multiple languages for official use. Urdu’s deep integration in legal and social discourse was also noted. The judgment underlined the constitutional value of tolerance, concluding that promoting inclusivity in language serves the public good, especially at the local governance level.

Tags:

Let us help you!

If you need any help, please feel free to contact us. We will get back to you within one business day. Alternatively, if you're in a hurry, you can call us now

+91 9052538538
info@karavadi.in

Recent Case Snippets

S.74 Contract Act | Forfeiture Of Earnest Money Permissible If It’s Not Excessive Amounting To Penalty : SC

In Godrej Projects Development Limited v. Anil Karlekar & Ors (Civil Appeal No. 3334/2023), the Supreme Court ruled that forfeiture of earnest money in property transactions is valid if reasonable and does not fall under Section 74 of the Indian Contract Act, unless it forms part of the consideration. The court emphasized that unfair and... Read more » Read more »

[Kotak Mahindra Bank (P) Ltd. v. Ambuj A. Kasliwal, (2021) 3 SCC 549] 16-02-2021

The Entire Waiver of Pre-deposit impermissible to file appeal before DRAT. Discretion of DRAT to reduce pre-deposit amount from 50% of debt due, held, is limited to reducing the pre-deposit to 25% thereof. The pre-deposit cannot under any circumstances be reduced below 25% of the debt due. Read more »

National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors.

In the case of National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors., the Supreme Court dismissed a writ petition filed by the NCPCR under Article 32, emphasizing that statutory bodies created to protect fundamental rights cannot invoke Article 32 to enforce their mandates against state authorities or private entities.... Read more » Read more »

Disclaimer

The Rules and Regulations set forth by the Bar Council of India under Advocates Act, 1961 prohibit Advocates or Law Firms from advertising or soliciting work through public domain communications. This website is intended solely to provide information. Karavadi & Associates (“K&A”) does not aim to advertise or solicit clients through this platform. K & A disclaim any responsibility for decisions made by readers/visitors based solely on the content of this website.

By clicking 'AGREE,' readers/visitors agree and acknowledge that the information provided herein (a) does not constitute advertising or solicitation, and (b) is intended solely for their understanding of K & A services. By continuing to use this site, you consent to the use of cookies on your device as outlined in our Cookie Policy.