The Supreme Court on Tuesday delivered a strong endorsement of India’s linguistic diversity, upholding the use of Urdu on a municipal council building signboard in Maharashtra.
The court emphasized that language is a vital part of cultural identity and should never become a tool to divide people. Highlighting the historical and cultural richness of Urdu, the court described it as “the finest specimen of Ganga-Jamuni tehzeeb, or Hindustani tehzeeb.”
A bench comprising Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and K Vinod Chandran refused to overturn a Bombay High Court decision, which had earlier concluded that the Maharashtra Local Authorities (Official Languages) Act, 2022, does not prohibit the use of Urdu alongside the state’s official language on municipal signboards.
The case had originated from a petition filed by a former councillor, who objected to the presence of Urdu on the signboard of the Patur Municipal Council in Akola district.
Delivering the judgment, Justice Dhulia noted, “Our misconceptions, and perhaps even prejudices against a language, must be tested against the reality of India’s great diversity.
Our strength lies in this diversity, and it should never be mistaken for a weakness. Let us embrace every language, including Urdu.”
The court firmly dismissed the notion that Urdu is “alien” to India, stating that the language was born and evolved on Indian soil. It emphasized that language should never be mistaken for religion or viewed through a religious lens.
“Language does not belong to a religion. It is an expression of a community, a region, and a people,” the judgment read. It further underscored that “language is culture, and is a marker of the civilizational progress of a community.”
Specifically praising Urdu, the court highlighted its deep ties to India’s pluralistic heritage, especially its role in reflecting the “composite cultural ethos of the plains of northern and central India.”
Justice Dhulia observed that the purpose of including Urdu on the municipal council’s signboard was purely for effective communication with the local population — a basic and essential function of any language.
Reflecting on India’s vast linguistic landscape, the court noted the country’s remarkable diversity, referencing census data. According to the 2001 Census, India had 122 major languages and 234 mother tongues.
Urdu is ranked as the sixth most spoken scheduled language. The 2011 Census expanded the list of recorded mother tongues to 270, a figure that only included languages with over 10,000 speakers, suggesting the true number is much higher.
The court traced the roots of the prejudice against Urdu to historical misconceptions, stating clearly that, like Hindi and Marathi, Urdu is an Indo-Aryan language that grew and thrived in India, shaped by interactions between people from varied linguistic and cultural backgrounds.
Over the centuries, it evolved into a refined language, becoming the medium of expression for many legendary poets and writers.
The judgment also reflected on the history of language debates in India, noting that before Independence, a large section of Indians viewed Hindustani — a blend of Hindi, Urdu, and Punjabi — as the common language of the masses.
Leaders like Jawaharlal Nehru had championed the idea of Hindustani as a unifying language for the nation, though the Partition and political circumstances later derailed this vision.
Under Article 343 of the Constitution, Hindi was declared the official language, with English permitted for use for official purposes for an initial period of 15 years.
However, the court pointed out that this constitutional provision was never intended to marginalize Hindustani or Urdu.
The court also highlighted Urdu’s deep imprint on everyday Indian speech and the country’s legal system. From courtroom terms like adalat (court), halafnama (affidavit), and peshi (appearance) to vakalatnama (power of attorney) and dasti (service by hand), Urdu remains deeply woven into Indian legal and administrative vocabulary.
Furthermore, the court emphasized that many Indian states and Union Territories have recognized Urdu as a second official language, reinforcing its legitimacy and cultural value.
Addressing the political and historical divisions that have often placed Hindi and Urdu on opposite sides, the court pointed out that the split was more a product of colonial manipulation and misplaced notions of linguistic purity than a reflection of reality.
Urdu and Hindi, it noted, share a common origin and are more alike than different, despite later attempts to associate them with religious identities.
Ultimately, the court backed the Bombay High Court’s stance, asserting that municipal bodies exist to serve their local communities. If the people in a locality are familiar with Urdu, the court ruled, there is no valid objection to its use on signboards alongside Marathi.
“Language is a bridge that connects people, facilitates dialogue, and fosters understanding — it should never become a wall that divides them,” the bench concluded.