The Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld the use of Urdu on the nameboard of a municipal council in Maharashtra [Mrs. Varshatai W/o Sh. Sanjay Bagade vs. State Of Maharashtra]. .A Bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and K Vinod Chandran said that Urdu and Marathi have the same status under the Constitution and rejected the claims that only Marathi should be used.The Court dismissed a petition by Varshatai Sanjay Bagade, a former councillor of Patur town, challenging the use of Urdu on the nameboard of the Municipal Council of Patur.Pertinently, the Court lamented that Urdu, despite its Indian origin, came to be associated with Muslims which was far from reality. The Court also blamed colonials powers in associating Hindi with Hindus and Urdu with Muslims.."This is not an occasion to have an elaborate discussion on the rise and fall of Urdu, but this much can be stated that this fusion of the two languages Hindi and Urdu met a roadblock in the form of the puritans on both sides and Hindi became more Sanskritized and Urdu more Persian. A schism exploited by the colonial powers in dividing the two languages on religion. Hindi was now understood to be the language of Hindus and Urdu of the Muslims, which is such a pitiable digression from reality; from unity in diversity; and the concept of universal brotherhood," the Court said.Urdu finds its roots in India and cannot be tied to any particular religion, the Court underlined."The prejudice against Urdu stems from the misconception that Urdu is alien to India. This opinion, we are afraid, is incorrect as Urdu, like Marathi and Hindi, is an Indo-Aryan language. It is a language which was born in this land. Urdu developed and flourished in India due to the need for people belonging to different cultural milieus who wanted to exchange ideas and communicate amongst themselves. Over the centuries, it attained ever greater refinement and became the language of choice for many acclaimed poets," the Court noted in its judgement..Bagade moved the Court claiming that use of Urdu was impermissible under the Maharashtra Local Authorities (Official Languages) Act, 2022. The Court disagreed, holding that there was no legal bar on using Urdu in addition to Marathi, and that the plea itself was based on a flawed understanding of language and law.“There is no prohibition on the use of Urdu under the 2022 Act or in any provision of law...Marathi and Urdu occupy the same position under Schedule VIII of the Constitution of India," the Court said. .The Municipal Council had rejected Bagade's plea in 2020, pointing out that Urdu had been used since 1956 and was widely understood by the local population. Her challenge was dismissed by the Bombay High Court in 2021 and she then approached the Supreme Court.The top court found that the Municipal Council had long used Urdu for local signage, and that the challenge was filed by a councillor and not by the Chief Officer, who alone was legally empowered to object under the Maharashtra Municipal Councils Act.The Court said the signage in Urdu was a matter of accessibility and public communication, not politics or religion.“Language is a medium for exchange of ideas that brings people holding diverse views and beliefs closer and it should not become a cause of their division...If people or a group of people, residing within the area covered by the Municipal Council are familiar with Urdu, then there should not be any objection if Urdu is used in addition to the official language i.e. Marathi, at least on the signboard of the Municipal Council,” the judgement said..Responding to the broader argument that Urdu was a religious or foreign language, the Court observed that Urdu has its roots in India.The Court emphasised that language does not represent religion; instead it belong to a community, region or people. ."Let our concepts be clear. Language is not religion Language does not even represent religion. Language belongs to a community, to a region, to people; and not to a religion. Language is culture. Language is the yardstick to measure the civilizational march of a community and its people. So is the case of Urdu, which is the finest specimen of ganga-jamuni tahzeeb, or the Hindustani tahzeeb, which is the composite cultural ethos of the plains of northern and central India. But before language became a tool for learning, its earliest and primary purpose will always remain communication," the judgement further stated. .The Bench also highlighted how deeply Urdu is embedded in Indian legal landscape and courts. “Urdu words have a heavy influence on Court parlance, both in criminal and civil law. From Adalat to halafnama to peshi, the influence of Urdu is writ large in the language of the Indian Courts.”.Ultimately while dismissing the plea, the Court held that the presence of Urdu alongside Marathi on the signboard did not violate any statutory or constitutional provision. It reiterated the need to confront and reassess personal misconceptions or prejudices against languages through an honest engagement with the linguistic diversity of India. "Our misconceptions, perhaps even our prejudices against a language have to be courageously and truthfully tested against the reality, which is this great diversity of our nation: Our strength can never be our weakness. Let us make friends with Urdu and every language," the Court said..Bagade was represented by advocates Kunal Cheema, Satyajeetsingh Raghuwanshi and Raghav Deshpande. The respondents were represented by advocates Preet S Phanse, Siddharth Dharmadhikari and Aaditya Aniruddha Pande. .[Read Judgment]
