Jashn-E-Urdu: Supreme Court affirms Urdu is ours too

Change is indeed the only constant, but does it apply to languages as well? In an era where identity politics often masquerades as linguistic preservation, the Supreme Court’s verdict in Mrs. Varshatai Bagade Vs State of Maharashtra (2025 SCC Online SC 778) stands out as a stirring reminder that language is not a boundary; it is a bridge. When a municipal signboard in a small town in Maharashtra bearing Marathi and Urdu became the epicentre of a constitutional predicament, few could have imagined the Supreme Court would respond with a thunderous affirmation of India’s pluralism.

Urdu has a considerable influence on the Court jargon used in India in both criminal and civil law. Despite English being the official language of the Supreme Court and High Courts under Article 348 of the Constitution, several Urdu terms like adalat, halafnama, peshi, vakalatnama, mujrim, muljim, and dasti are commonly used in the court corridors.

In Maharashtra, a seemingly innocuous decision by the Municipal Council of Patur to display its name on a signboard in both Marathi, the official State language, and Urdu, a language widely understood by the residents led to controversy. The use of language, which was meant for communication per se, was politicised. In this case, the appellant contended that according to Section 3 (1) (a) to (i) of the Local Authorities (Official Languages) Act, 2022 (hereinafter referred as ‘2022 Act’), the use of Urdu on the signboard is illegal as it only allows the use of Marathi, and exceptionally English, for such purposes. It is pertinent to note that, according to Section 308(1) of the Maharashtra Municipal Council, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Township Act, 1965, the authority to interfere in such matters lies with the Collector only when a resolution is sent by the Chief Officer before the Collector. Although the appellant was not a Commissioner, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has dealt with the matter in question on merits.

The Bench comprising Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice K Vinod Chandran has delivered more than just a legal judgment as they have penned a linguistic manifesto observing that language and religion are two unrelated parallels, wherein language is rather more closely tied to cultural identity, people, and regions.

The Bench further observed that:

“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.”

The judgement elucidates that according to Granville Austin, Jawaharlal Nehru and Mahatma Gandhi, partition ripped to pieces what was about to be formed, a marriage between Urdu and Hindi- ‘Hindustani’. Further, the partition brutally polarised Urdu as a Muslim language and Hindi as a Hindu language. Nevertheless, the Hon’ble Court has stated that Urdu is very much an official language under Schedule VIII of the Constitution of India and it occupies the same position as Marathi, not less or more.

The prejudice against Urdu arises from the mistaken belief that it is foreign to India. In reality, Urdu is an Indo-Aryan language that originated in India, just like Hindi and Marathi. It has evolved as a means of communication among people from diverse cultural backgrounds in India, and has gradually developed in refinement, eventually becoming the preferred language of many renowned poets. As Mir Taqi Mir beautifully said,

“urdu hai jis kā naam hamīñ jānte haiñ 'dāġh'

hindostāñ meñ dhuum hamārī zabāñ kī hai”

And as authors, we believe that even today, the grace of the language lives on in those who speak it with love,

“salīqe se havāoñ meñ jo ḳhushbū ghol sakte haiñ

abhī kuchh log baaqī haiñ jo urdu bol sakte haiñ”

The use of Urdu is so unknowingly prevalent in our daily communication that it is difficult to segregate it from the language. Even a Hindi scholar namely, Ram Vilas Sharma, who is a strong supporter of Hindi as a national language, in his book “Bharat ki Bhasha Samasya” wrote,

“Hindi-Urdu are not two separate languages; they are basically one and the same. Their pronouns, verbs, and basic vocabulary are the same. There are no two other languages in the world whose pronouns and verbs are one hundred per cent the same. Russian and Ukrainian are much akin to each other, but even they are not so closely alike.”

This judgment reminds the nation that both Marathi and Urdu are recognised under Schedule VIII of the Constitution of India. More importantly, this judgment has dismantled the notion that using multiple languages dilutes a State’s identity. On the contrary, the inclusion of Urdu on a signboard used by the local populace for better communication was an act of accommodation, not defiance.

This ruling upholds one of the pillars of the Constitution of India, i.e., ‘Secularism’, which ensures the liberty of thought, expression, and belief. Tolerance towards different cultural identities is a big driver towards the common goal of fraternity of the Constitution. It is beautifully said by Mouloud Benzadi,

“When you learn a language, you don't just learn to speak and write a new language. You also learn to be open-minded, liberal, tolerant, kind, and considerate towards all mankind.”

This verdict is not merely about a signboard but about reclaiming the diverse culture that defines India, where a language like Urdu, born on Indian soil, needs not apologise for its remote Persian roots, and where Marathi can stand proud without being insecure.

The Court's poetic conclusion, quoting an Urdu verse, drives home the message that one should not reduce languages to political pawns; instead, one should celebrate them as vessels of shared histories and mutual respect.

This judgement was pronounced in Delhi, a city which has historically inherited the philosophy of Vasudev Kutumbhakam, and has acted as a champion of Urdu, Persian, Sanskrit, and Hindi. It is not merely a coincidence that it is Delhi where Dara Shikoh, the son of Shah Jahan, translated the Geeta and the Upanishads into Persian. It is Delhi that showed the exuberance of Urdu in the poetry of Zauq, Bahadur Shah Zafar, and the legendary Mirza Ghalib. It is Delhi where Hon’ble Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Hon’ble Justice K Vinod Chandran passed a judgement which will be instrumental in the protection of a language which is synonymous with “Meethi Zubaan and Ganga Jamuna Tehzib".

About the authors: Sudhir Mishra is the Managing Partner of Trust Legal Advocates & Consultants. Garima Raisinghani an Neerja are Associates at the Firm.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author(s). The opinions presented do not necessarily reflect the views of Bar & Bench.

If you would like your Deals, Columns, Press Releases to be published on Bar & Bench, please fill in the form available here.