In a historic decision, the Supreme Court of India retained the use of Urdu on the signboard of a municipal council building in Maharashtra, strengthening the importance of linguistic and cultural diversity.
Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and K Vinod Chandran said, “Language is culture” and should be united instead of admiration of Urdu as a major element of Ganga-Jamuni and Hindustani cultures.
The ruling ruling came in response to a petition of a former councilor, which used Urdu at Pathaur Municipal Council building in Akola district, Indian express Informed
The court rejected the challenge, confirming that the use of Urdu has been allowed under the Maharashtra Local authorities (official languages) Act, 2022, and does not violate any existing law.
In his written judgment, Justice Dhulia emphasized the need to assure prejudices about the language, highlighted Urdu’s role in India’s rich cultural tapestry and advocated linguistic inclusion in public places.
“Our misunderstanding, perhaps our prejudices against a language, should be tested boldly and against reality, which is this great diversity of our nation: our strength can never be our weakness. Let us be friends with Urdu and every language,” SC said.
The court directly addressed the misconception that Urdu is a foreigner to India, “firmly saying that” this is a language that was born in this land “.
“Language is not religion. Language also does not represent religion. The language belongs to a community, in one region, for people, and not for religion,” Dhulia explained in detail.
The court emphasized the primary functioning of language as a communication, saying: “Before becoming a tool to learn the language, its first and primary purpose will always remain communication … The purpose here for the use of Urdu is only communication.
“All the municipal councils wanted to communicate an effective communication. This is the primary objective of a language, which the Bombay High Court has emphasized.”
Multilingual
The Indian SC underlined the country’s huge linguistic diversity citing census data since 2001, with 122 major languages and 234 mother tongues, with Urdu sixth most spoken scheduled scheduled language, which was present in most parts of India.
The 2011 census increased the number of mother tongues to 270 (looking at people with 10,000 speakers), the actual number can occur in thousands.
Addressing the historical context, the court stated that “prejudice against Urdu stems from the misconception that Urdu is foreign to India,” clarifying that Urdu, like Marathi and Hindi, is an Indo-Aryan language, developed in India due to the need for inter-cultural communication.
“Over the centuries, it has been received … more and more purification and became the language of choice for many acclaimed poets,” Judgment said.
The court also stated that Urdu in everyday Hindi and even in Indian legal ecology, “cited examples”court” (court), “Halafanama“(Affidavit), and”Cup“(Presence before the court), as well as conditions used in the apex court”Vakalatanama“(Power of Attorney document).
It was also noted that many Indian states and center regions have adopted Urdu as the second official language.
“When we criticize Urdu, we are criticizing Hindi in a way, such as linguistic and literary scholars, Urdu and Hindi are not two languages, but a language,” said this.
The court said that “under Article 343 of the Constitution, Hindi is the official language, while the use of English was made acceptable for official purposes for a period of 15 years.
“But this does not mean that Hindustani and Urdu have become extinct. It was never the intention of the Frams of the Constitution.”
“Even today, the language used by the common people of the country is full of Urdu language words, even if no one knows about it.”
Finally maintaining the approach of the High Court, the SC bench concluded that using Urdu on a signboard with the official language (Marathi), aiming to serve its local community for a municipal council, is a matter of effective communication and if a section of the population is familiar with it should not face objection.
The bench said, “Language is a medium for the exchange of ideas that bring people closer to diverse ideas and beliefs and it should not cause their partition.”
