In the defence of Urdu, the case for linguistic diversity

SCHEDULE VIII NAMES VARIOUS LANGUAGES FOR RECOGNITION BY THE STATES FOR OFFICIAL PURPOSES. WHILE URDU WAS LISTED IN IT FROM THE BEGINNING, IT HAS BEEN AMENDED REPEATEDLY TO INCLUDE MORE LOCAL LANGUAGES

- Tahir Mahmood

The Supreme Court decision in an appeal against municipal signboards in Urdu serves as an eye-opener for those who are blind to the Constitutional provisions related to the needs of a multilingual State

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. With this meaningful observation, a division bench of the Supreme Court has decided an appeal challenging why the municipal committee of a small township in Maharashtra wrote its name on its office signboard, along with Marathi, in Urdu (Varshati v State of Maharashtra, 2025). The court's observation cited here reflects its annoyance and worry about the bias now widely prevailing in society against this beautiful and melodious language born and brought up on Indian soil and recognised by the Constitution as one of the country's principal languages.

The overzealous appellant in the case had left no stone unturned to ensure that her conspicuously unconstitutional thinking got the nod of a competent authority. Step by step, she agitated for it before the hierarchy of local bodies, the Bombay High Court's Nagpur Bench, and finally the nation's apex court. She tried to strengthen her case with reference to a new law enacted by the Maharashtra legislature during the pendency of her appeal in the Supreme Court, under whose direction the High Court reviewed its decision but stood by it. She then returned to the apex court for relief, as if heaven would fall if Urdu was allowed to remain on the signboard of the office of her township's municipality.