Varshatai Vs the State of Maharashtra C.a. No. 5187-5188/2025

The Supreme Court's recent verdict in Varshatai v. State of Maharashtra (C.A. No. 5187–5188 of 2025) is a judicial affirmation of India's multicultural ethos and linguistic inclusivity. At its core, the case was about a signboard. Yet the judgment reached far deeper—reaffirming the values of linguistic diversity, minority protection, and inclusive governance that lie at the heart of the Indian Constitution.

The case arose when the petitioner, Varshatai, a former councillor from Patur Municipal Council in Akola, objected to a bilingual signboard that bore the name of the council in both Marathi and Urdu. Her contention was rooted in the Maharashtra Local Authorities (Official Languages) Act, 2022, which mandates the use of Marathi in official communication and signage. The petitioner argued that the inclusion of

Urdu violated this law and sought its removal.

The Supreme Court, however, took a broader, constitutionally informed view. In a lucid and culturally sensitive judgment delivered by Justices Dhulia and Chandran, the Court unequivocally dismissed the plea. It held that the 2022 Act merely prescribes the use of Marathi—it does not prohibit the use of any additional language. Thus, the presence of Urdu on the signboard was not only permissible, but commendable in a multilingual democracy like India.

The Court reminded all stakeholders that language is not a tool of exclusion but a bridge of participation. Citing Article 345 of the Constitution, it reinforced the State’s power to adopt or permit multiple official languages for administrative purposes. Importantly, the bench rejected any attempt to equate a language with a religious identity, asserting firmly that Urdu, like any other language, is a cultural asset—not a communal identifier.

In doing so, the judgment struck at the roots of a growing tendency to weaponize language in service of identity politics. The Court emphasized India’s civilizational embrace of linguistic pluralism, drawing upon the rich tradition of the Ganga–Jamuni tehzeeb, where Urdu coexisted harmoniously with other regional languages, particularly Marathi, for centuries.

Equally important was the Court’s recognition of practical governance realities. It observed that public communication must be accessible to all, especially in localities with significant linguistic minorities. Denying signage or communication in a community’s spoken language effectively alienates them from participating in governance—a scenario that runs counter to the ideals of democracy and participatory justice.

This decision thus becomes a landmark not just in terms of statutory interpretation but in preserving the constitutional fabric of inclusivity. It reminds us that the essence of democracy lies in ensuring that every citizen—regardless of language, faith, or region—feels seen, heard, and represented in the public sphere.

Moreover, the judgment aligns with India’s obligations under international human rights principles that safeguard linguistic and cultural rights of minorities. In a global context where language policies often become flashpoints for conflict, India’s highest court has shown how constitutional courts can uphold plurality through reasoned restraint and cultural sensitivity.

However, the judgment also acts as a cautionary signal to legislative bodies and administrators. Any future effort to impose a monolingual regime in multilingual regions may face judicial invalidation. The message is clear: imposing uniformity at the cost of diversity is antithetical to Indian constitutionalism.

In conclusion, Varshatai v. State of Maharashtra is more than a dispute over signage—it is a reaffirmation of India’s multilingual identity and a robust defense of constitutional morality. In a time when identity politics often seeks to fragment societies, the Supreme Court has chosen to reinforce the inclusive, plural, and democratic spirit envisioned by the framers of our Constitution. This verdict is a reminder that unity in diversity is not just a slogan—it is our legal and moral compass.