Bombay HC rejects plea against state making Marathi signboards mandatory for shops, establishments

The Bombay High Court on Wednesday rejected a petition filed by the Federation of Retail Traders (FRT) challenging the Maharashtra government’s decision that made it mandatory for all shops and establishments in the state to display signboards in Marathi written in the Devanagari script. The division bench comprising Justice Gautam S Patel and Justice Madhav J Jamdar also imposed a cost of Rs 25,000 on the petitioner organisation and asked the amount to be deposited in the Chief Minister’s Relief Fund within a week.

The high court upheld the state’s decision, terming it a “reasonable requirement”.

Notably, the state government had passed the Maharashtra Shops and Establishments (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 2017 mandating the use of Marathi in signboards. The rules also stated that the font of the Marathi-Devanagari script cannot be smaller than that of other scripts. However, the law does not apply to establishments and shops with less than 10 employees.

Failure to comply with the rules would attract a penalty up to Rs 1 lakh and a fine of Rs 2,000 per day would be imposed in the event of continued non-compliance with the law.

“A Public purpose is sought to be achieved by the said Rule. There is a broader public purpose and rationale. Marathi may be the official language of the state government, but it is an undeniably common language and mother tongue of the state… It has its own extremely rich and diverse cultural traditions extending to every field of endeavour from literature to theatre and beyond. There are texts in Marathi which are expressed and written in Devanagari,” the bench observed.

It added, “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.”

“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 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 noted in its order.

The FRT petition had claimed that the state government’s move was violative of Article 14 (Right to equality before law), 19 (1) (A) (Right to freedom of expression) and Article 21 (Right to personal liberty) of the Constitution, among others, and there was “no rational” in the said decision as the “state’s choice of language cannot be foisted on shops.”

The plea had argued that while Marathi is a constitutionally recognized language, Devanagari script is not. Therefore, the petitioner had claimed that Marathi language can be written in many scripts without the compulsion of using a specific one. Advocate Abhay Patki for the state government opposed the plea.

The court observed, “Indeed, 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 high court said that the “rights under Article 19 of the Constitution are not unfettered” and contain reasonable restrictions.

The court said, “The distinction sought to be drawn between language and script is an argument of sheer desperation… Obviously there are situations where the language and the script will go hand in hand. We cannot help but wonder what is the real intent and purpose of this petition at all… given the fact that the impugned Rule has been in existence since 2018. We reject the petition.”