Bombay High Court rejects plea challenging mandatory Marathi on signboards of shops

The Bombay High Court on Wednesday rejected a petition challenging a Maharashtra government decision mandating all shops and establishments within the State to display their signboards in Marathi (written in Devanagari script) [Federation of Retail Traders Welfare Association & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.]..The plea filed by Federation of Retail Traders Association had challenged the amendment to the Rule 35 of the of the Maharashtra Shops and Establishments (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Rules which mandated a "name board in Marathi".A Bench of Justices Gautam Patel and Madhav Jamdar emphasised in its ruling that using other languages on display boards was not prohibited, and that the rule merely required the name to also be shown in Marathi.Justice Jamdar clarified that the Rule was for the convenience of the public at large in Maharashtra, whose mother tongue is Marathi."Marathi may be the official language of the State government, but it is an undeniably common language and mother tongue of the State. We are mindful that in some parts of the nation, there is a practice of not using any other script other than the local script. That is not the case here. No other language is prohibited or banned here. The distinction sought to be drawn between language and script is an argument of sheer desperation," the ruling underscored..The Court upheld the constitutional validity of the rule terming it a reasonable requirement."A public purpose is sought to be achieved by the said Rule. There is a broader public purpose and rationale. ...To say that there is some sort of invidious discrimination is wholly untrue. If any retailer wishes to carry out trade in Maharashtra, it shall be subject to conditions that the government seeks to impose uniformly on all. Clearly, there is no violation of Article 14 (right to equality before law) of the Constitution," the Bench held..The Bench also commented that the petition failed to take into account the true intention of the Rules as a matter of policy for the State government."The petition fails to recognise that this requirement is not meant to benefit retail traders, but it is meant for convenience and benefit of the workers and the public who approach them. These are persons, who in the estimation of the state government as a matter of policy, are more likely to be familiar with Marathi in Devanagari script," the Bench observed..The Bench questioned the motive behind filing of the petition in 2022 when the amendment to the Rules was carried out in 2018.Additional Government Pleader Abhay Patki pointed out an allegation in the petition that political parties use the "Marathi Agenda" only when elections are around the corner.Finding the intent of the petitioners not bonafide, the Bench imposed a cost of ₹25,000 on the association. The amount was directed to be deposited in the Chief Minister’s Relief Fund within a week.The plea filed through advocate DU Siroya claimed that the Rules violated Part III of the Constitution as it curtailed the freedom of expression by making it mandatory for every establishment of more than 10 employees to have a name-board in Marathi. The submission was that the State cannot dictate to its citizens as to what language a signboard must have displayed. Therefore, the petitioner had claimed that Marathi language can be written in many scripts without the compulsion of using a specific one..The Court highlighted the importance of using Marathi in other sectors, including the right of litigants to submit documents in Marathi in Devanagri script in the High Court unless a particular judge or Bench seeks for translation of such documents. "Even in this High Court, we permit documents in Marathi in Devanagari although the language of court is English, unless translations are required by a particular bench or court. It is a right of litigant before this court to put documents in the court in Marathi, unless translations are sought specifically," the Court said. .[Read order]