In the Varshatai w/o Sanjay Bagade vs State Of Maharashtra case, the Supreme Court upheld the use of Urdu on a municipal signboard in Patur, Maharashtra.

Key Observations of the Supreme Court on Urdu

• Urdu is an Indian Language: The Court stated that Urdu is often subjected to prejudice due to the misconception that it is alien to India; however, this belief is unfounded and incorrect.
  • It affirmed that Urdu, like Marathi and Hindi, is an Indo-Aryan language born in India.
• Linguistic Diversity Must Be Upheld: Upholding the use of Urdu on the municipal signboard, the Court reinforced the constitutional right to linguistic diversity under Articles 29 and 30.
  • Municipal councils serve local needs; if Urdu is widely understood in the local area, its use alongside Marathi is justified on the signboard of the municipal council.
  • Article 29 guarantees the right of minorities to conserve their distinct language, script, or culture, while Article 30 provides minority communities with the right to establish and administer educational institutions.
• Language is Not Religion: The Court emphasized that “Language is not religion. Language does not even represent religion.”
  • It stressed that language belongs to a community, region, and people and it is an expression of culture, not faith.
• Urdu’s Influence on Indian Legal Language: Urdu terms are widely used in both criminal and civil law—e.g., adalat, halafnama, peshi.
  • Despite Article 348 mandating English as the official language of the Supreme Court and High Courts, Urdu words like vakalatnama and dasti remain in regular use.
• Language as a Cultural Bridge: The Court described Urdu as a product of interactions with Persian, Arabic, Turkish, and North Indian dialects, specifically referring to the Ganga-Jamuni tehzeeb (Hindustani culture).
• Rejecting Identity-Based Language Politics: The Court indirectly critiqued the use of language for divisive identity politics, advocating instead for celebrating language as a shared cultural space.