Read Time: 18 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court on April 15, 2025, observed that the prejudice against Urdu stems from the misconception that Urdu is alien to India, an incorrect opinion as Urdu, like Marathi and Hindi, is an Indo-Aryan language. 

The court said it is a language that 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.

Rejecting a plea against use of Urdu in signboard in municipal council of Akola in Maharashtra, a bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and K Vinod Chandran said in view of 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.

"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 bench said.

The court dismissed a plea by one Varshatai against the Bombay High Court's judgment refusing to interfere in the use of Urdu in the signboard of the Municipal Council in the district of Akola, Maharashtra.

The petitioner claimed that as a new legislation i.e., the Maharashtra Local Authorities (Official Languages) Act, 2022, had been enacted, the use of Urdu language on the signboard of the Municipal Council was not permitted.

"The High Court to our mind rightly concluded that the 2022 Act, on which the appellant placed significant reliance, does not prohibit the use of an additional language, which is Urdu in the present case, on the signboard of the Municipal Council building," the bench said.

It said there is no prohibition on using any other language, especially one included in the VIIIth Schedule of the Constitution.

"Even the enactment recognises that language essentially is a tool of communication; which, according to us, cannot be condemned, when this language is being used by a community or group. We have to emphasize that Marathi and Urdu occupy the same position under Schedule VIII of the Constitution of India," the bench said.

"Before us is a fellow citizen who has taken great pains to take this matter twice to the high court and then twice again before this court. What the appellant thinks may also be the thinking of many of our fellow citizens. These need to be addressed," the bench said.

The court said 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 bench said.

The bench felt we must respect and rejoice in our diversity, including our many languages. India has more than a hundred major languages. Then there are other languages known as dialects or ‘Mother Tongues’ which also run into hundreds. 

According to the 2001 Census, India had a total of 122 major languages, including the 22 scheduled languages, and a total of 234 mother tongues. Urdu was the sixth most spoken scheduled language of India.

The court noted the Constitution though, mentions twenty-two Indian languages in its VIIIth Schedule, which includes both Marathi and Urdu, and significantly, ‘English’ is not a language mentioned in the VIIIth Schedule as it is not an Indian language.

The court pointed out that 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 said that after the partition of the nation in 1947 and the adoption of Urdu by Pakistan as its national language. The ultimate victim was Hindustani.

"Even today, the language used by the common people of the country is replete with words of the Urdu language, even if one is not aware of it. It would not be incorrect to say that one cannot have a day-to-day conversation in Hindi without using words of Urdu or words derived from Urdu. The word ‘Hindi’ itself comes from the Persian word ‘Hindavi’! This exchange of vocabulary flows both ways because Urdu also has many words borrowed from other Indian languages, including Sanskrit," the court said.

The bench pointed out, interestingly, 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. For that matter, even though the official language of the Supreme Court and the high courts as per Article 348 of the Constitution is English, yet many Urdu words continue to be used in these courts till date. These include vakalatnama, dasti, etc.

Viewed from another perspective, the Urdu language has come to be adopted by many States and Union Territories in India as the second official language in exercise of powers conferred by Article 345 of the Constitution. The States which have Urdu as one of the official languages are Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, Jharkhand, Telangana, Uttar Pradesh, and West Bengal, while the Union Territories which follow this practice are Delhi and Jammu and Kashmir, the bench said.

The court pointed out even from a Constitutional perspective, the use of language for official purposes is not according to any rigid formula. For example, Article 120 of the Constitution prescribes Hindi or English as the official language of Parliament, but the proviso to the said Article empowers the Presiding Officer of the House to allow a member to express themselves in their mother tongue, if they do not know Hindi or English. The same principle applies to State legislatures vide Article 210 of the Constitution.

"It may also be of same interest to know that when we criticize Urdu, we are in a way also criticizing Hindi, as according to linguists and literary scholars, Urdu and Hindi are not two languages, but it is one language. True, Urdu is mainly written in Nastaliq and Hindi in Devnagri; but then scripts do not make a language. What makes languages distinct is their syntax, their grammar and their phonology. Urdu and Hindi have broad similarities in all these counts," the bench said.

If there are dissimilarities, there are plenty between Hindi and high Hindi, like there are between Urdu and high Urdu. But close similarities exist between Hindi and Urdu, when these are spoken day-to-day, the bench said.

The court said this was not an occasion to have an elaborate discussion on the rise and fall of Urdu, but this much could 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.

With regard to the present case, the bench said, it had to be stated that a Municipal Council was there to provide services to the local community of the area and cater to their immediate day-to-day needs.

"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. 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," the bench said.

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, the court highlighted.

"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 bench said.

Case Title: Mrs Varshatai Vs The State of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary, Ministry of Law And Judiciary, Mantralaya, Mumbai And Ors Etc