The Supreme Court of India, in a judgment delivered on 15 April 2025, dismissed a challenge to the display of Urdu alongside Marathi on the signboard of a Municipal Council building in Patur, Maharashtra. A Bench of Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice K. Vinod Chandran held that the use of an additional language on official signboards does not violate the Maharashtra Local Authorities (Official Languages) Act, 2022 or any constitutional provision governing official languages.
Background
The appellant, Varshatai, had objected to the Municipal Council of Patur in Akola district displaying its name in both Marathi and Urdu on the signboard of its new building. The Municipal Council, through a resolution dated 14 February 2020, rejected the objection by majority vote. The Council justified the inclusion of Urdu on the ground that a significant Urdu-speaking population resided within its jurisdiction.
The appellant challenged this resolution before the Bombay High Court, which upheld the Municipal Council's decision. The matter reached the Supreme Court on further appeal. The core legal question was whether a local authority's decision to display an additional language alongside the mandated official language contravened the state's official language legislation.
Key Holdings
The Supreme Court addressed the linguistic rights question with the following observations:
Constitutional parity of scheduled languages: Both Urdu and Marathi are included in the Eighth Schedule of the Constitution. The Court observed that languages listed in the Eighth Schedule enjoy equal constitutional recognition, and no hierarchy exists among them.
Article 345 does not prohibit additional languages: While Article 345 empowers State Legislatures to adopt one or more languages for official purposes, this provision does not operate as a prohibition against the use of additional languages for public communication by local bodies.
No violation of Maharashtra legislation: The Maharashtra Local Authorities (Official Languages) Act, 2022 mandates the use of Marathi as the official language of local authorities. The Court held that the use of Urdu alongside Marathi -- not in replacement of it -- does not contravene this statutory mandate.
Linguistic pluralism affirmed: The Court emphasised that India's constitutional framework celebrates linguistic diversity, and the use of an additional language on a public building serves the communicative needs of the local population without diminishing the status of the official language.
Implications for Practitioners
This ruling has relevance beyond the specific facts of the Maharashtra signboard dispute. For practitioners advising municipal bodies and local authorities across India, the judgment confirms that the adoption of an official language by a state legislature does not preclude local bodies from using additional languages for public-facing communication, particularly where a substantial local population speaks that language.
The decision is significant for states with linguistically diverse populations. Municipal Councils and Panchayats in areas with significant linguistic minorities can rely on this precedent to adopt multilingual signage and communication without fear of challenge under official language legislation.
Practitioners should note, however, that the judgment turned partly on the fact that Urdu was not replacing Marathi but supplementing it. Any situation where a non-official language entirely displaces the mandated official language would likely attract a different analysis. The distinction between supplementary and substitutive use of additional languages is critical for compliance advice.