Monday, April 21, 2025

Supreme Court upholds descision of Bombay High Court on Urdu

Urdu and Hindi are not two languages, but it is one language. Urdu and Hindi are mentioned as two different languages in our Constitution, but that is political expediency, not a linguistic reality." Their recognition as two separate languages under the Constitution need not deter linguists from questioning the scientific validity of their separation. 

-Supreme Court of India, April 15, 2025

In Ms. Varshatai, w/o Sanjay Bagade vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. Etc., Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and K. Vinod Chandran concluded:"The display of an additional language cannot, by itself, be said to be in violation of the provisions of the 2022 Act. The High Court while reaching the above findings had considered the relevant provisions of law. We completely agree with the reasoning given by the High Court that there is no prohibition on the use of Urdu under the 2022 Act or in any provision of law. The entire case of the appellant to our mind is based on a misconception of law. We see no reason therefore to interfere in the present case. These appeals are liable to be dismissed, and are hereby dismissed" in its 36-page long judgment dated April 15, 2025. The 2022 Act refers to Maharashtra Local Authorities (Official Languages) Act, 2022. It was wrongly claimed that in terms of which, the use of Urdu language on the signboard of the Municipal Council is not permitted.

Supreme Court observed:"The High Court to our mind rightly concluded that the 2022 Act, on which the appellant placed significant reliance, does not prohibit the use of an additional language, which is Urdu in the present case, on the signboard of the Municipal Council building. The argument before the High Court in the second round of litigation by the present appellant was that Section 3(1) of the 2022 Act provides for Marathi to be the official language of all local authorities in the State, except for the purposes specified in sub-section (2) and the only exception which was provided was the use of English in the specified communications under sub-section (2). All the same, this argument is incorrect. There is no prohibition on using any other language, especially one included in the VIIIth Schedule of the Constitution of India. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 is an enabling provision to use English in situations where the communications, in which the subject matter of the communication cannot be properly conveyed in Marathi or in situations where the persons to whom such communications are addressed cannot understand Marathi. This makes it more than explicit that even the enactment recognizes that language essentially is a tool of communication; which, according to us, cannot be condemned, when this language is being used by a community or group. We have to emphasize that Marathi and Urdu occupy the same position under Schedule VIII of the Constitution of India."

The Court pointed out that "a fellow citizen" has  great pains to take this matter twice to the High Court and then twice again" before the Supreme Court. It underlined that "What the appellant thinks may also be the thinking of many of our fellow citizens. These need to be addressed."

Addressing such thinking, the Court observed:"Let our concepts be clear. Language is not religion. Language does not even represent religion. Language belongs to a community, to a region, to people; and not to a religion. 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. But before language became a tool for learning, its earliest and primary purpose will always remain communication." 

The judgment recorded that India has more than hundred major languages. Then there are other languages known as dialects or ‘Mother Tongues’ which also run into hundreds. According to the 2001 Census, India had a total of 122 major languages including the 22 scheduled languages, and a total of 234 mother tongues. Urdu was the sixth most spoken scheduled language of India. In the 2011 Census, the number of mother tongues increased to 270. However, it is to be noted that this number was also arrived at by taking into consideration only those mother tongues which had more than ten thousand speakers. Thus, it would not be wrong to say that the actual number of mother tongues in India would run into thousands. Such is the immense linguistic diversity of India!

The Constitution of India though mentions twenty-two Indian languages in its VIIIth Schedule, which includes both Marathi and Urdu, and significantly, ‘English’ is not a language mentioned in the VIIIth Schedule as it is not an Indian language. Language is also representative of a culture. It is both sensitive and delicate. Article 351 emphasizes on the spread of Hindi language and to develop the language, inter alia, by assimilating the forms and style and expressions used in “Hindustani” and other languages of the VIIIth Schedule and wherever necessary or desirable, by drawing vocabulary, primarily from Sanskrit but also secondarily from other languages. Article empowers State legislatures to adopt Hindi or any other language in use in that State as the official language of that State. 

The Court observed:"The prejudice against Urdu stems from the misconception that Urdu is alien to India. This opinion, we are afraid, is incorrect as Urdu, like Marathi and Hindi, is an Indo-Aryan language. It is a language which was born in this land. Urdu developed and flourished in India due to the need for people belonging to different cultural milieus who wanted to exchange ideas and communicate amongst themselves. Over the centuries, it attained ever greater refinement and became the language of choice for many acclaimed poets."

It noted that the early debates in the Constituent Assembly indicated a compromise on this issue between the hardliners from both sides i.e. between supporters of Sanskritized Hindi and proponents of liberal mixture of Urdu and Hindi known as ‘Hindustani’. But then comes a strong rupture in the form of the partition of India, and amongst its several fallouts, one vital blow was given to Urdu and Hindustani both. 

In his book The Indian Constitution: Cornerstone of a Nation, Granville Austin wrote:

“…Partition killed Hindustani and endangered the position of English and the provincial languages in the Constitution. ‘If there had been no Partition, Hindustani would without doubt have been the national language,’ K. Santhanam believed, ‘but the anger against the Muslims turned against Urdu. Assembly members ‘felt that the Muslims having caused the division of the country, the whole issue of national language must be reviewed afresh’, said an article in The Hindustan Times. Having seen the dream of unity shattered by Partition, by the ‘treachery’ of the Urdu (Hindustani) speakers, the Hindi extremists became even more firmly committed to Hindi and to achieving national unity through it. Speakers of the provincial languages must learn Hindi and the regional languages must take second place, the Hindi-wallahs believed. And as to English, it should go as Urdu had gone. Were not both un-Indian?” The judgment referred to these observations of Austin. 

While it is a fact now that Hindustani is not the official language under the Constitution. Under Article 343 of the Constitution, Hindi is the official language, while the use of English was made permissible for official purposes for a period of fifteen years. But this does not mean that Hindustani and Urdu have become extinct. This was never the intention of the framers of the Constitution. 

Urdu language has come to be adopted by many States and Union Territories in India ad the second official language in exercise of powers conferred by Article 345 of the Constitution. The States which have Urdu as one of the official languages are Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, Jharkhand, Telangana, Uttar Pradesh, and West Bengal, while the Union Territories which follow this practice are Delhi and Jammu and Kashmir. 

Even from a Constitutional perspective, the use of language for official purposes is not according to any rigid formula. For example, Article 120 of the Constitution prescribes Hindi or English as the official language of Parliament, but the proviso to the said Article empowers the Presiding Officer of the House to allow a member to express themselves in their mother tongue, if they do not know Hindi or English. The same principle applies to State legislatures vide Article 210 of the Constitution.

The Court underscored that when anyone criticizes Urdu, in a way one criticizes Hindi because according to linguists and literary scholars, Urdu and Hindi are not two languages, but it is one language. Urdu is mainly written in Nastaliq and Hindi in Devnagri; but scripts do not make a language. What makes languages distinct is their syntax, their grammar and their phonology. Urdu and Hindi have broad similarities in all these counts.

No comments: