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

Leader of Opposition: Democratic Necessity or Speaker’s Discretion?

“Opposition in a democratic House is a great necessity. It is an indispensable condition of all democratic institutions. We propose to all ourselves, and we propose to make our country, a 'democratic, sovereign republic'. If we cannot ensure any opposition, we should rather call the constitution that of an 'undemocratic, Read more »

OPG Power Generation Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Enexio Power Cooling Solutions India Pvt. Ltd

In OPG Power Generation Pvt. Ltd. vs. Enexio Power Cooling Solutions India Pvt. Ltd., 2024 INSC 711, the Supreme Court dealt with the scope of judicial review of arbitral awards under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The dispute involved unpaid dues and counterclaims related Read more »

Arbitrability of Claims Cannot Be Decided at Section 11 Stage

In Office for Alternative Architecture v. Ircon Infrastructure And Services Ltd., 2025 INSC 665, the Hon’ble Supreme Court set aside an order of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court order which had excluded certain claims as non-arbitrable in view of “excepted matters” clauses in the contract, while appointing an arbitral tribunal 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.