Also Written By: Janvi Patidar | Legal & Current Affairs Faculty
This section continues the analysis of Landmark Judgments 2025–2026 for CLAT PG, focusing on four important Supreme Court decisions that are highly relevant for constitutional interpretation, criminal law, maintenance law, and civil procedure.
VARSHATAI v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Civil Appeal No. 5187–5188 of 2025
Bench: Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Krishnan V. Chandran
Nature of Proceedings
Civil appeals challenging the judgment of the Bombay High Court concerning the permissibility of using Urdu as an additional language on the signboard of a Municipal Council building in the State of Maharashtra.
Issue for Determination
Whether the Maharashtra Local Authorities (Official Languages) Act, 2022 prohibits the use of Urdu as an additional language on the signboard of a Municipal Council building.
Factual Background
The Municipal Council, Patur (District Akola), installed a signboard displaying its name in Marathi, followed by its Urdu translation. The appellant objected on the ground that Marathi is the official language of the State and, therefore, municipal functions must be conducted exclusively in Marathi.
The objection was initially accepted by the Collector under the Maharashtra Township Act, 1965. However, the Divisional Commissioner set aside that order. The appellant thereafter approached the Bombay High Court seeking a direction prohibiting the use of Urdu in governmental and municipal work. The High Court declined interference.
During the pendency of proceedings, the Maharashtra Local Authorities (Official Languages) Act, 2022 came into force. The High Court reconsidered the matter in light of the new enactment and again held that the use of Urdu as an additional language did not violate the statutory scheme. The present appeals were filed before the Supreme Court.
Decision
The Supreme Court upheld the judgment of the High Court and held that the 2022 Act does not prohibit the use of Urdu as an additional language on the signboard of a Municipal Council building.
The opinion of the Court was delivered by Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia.
Reasons for the Decision
1. Interpretation of the 2022 Act
The Court examined Section 3 of the Maharashtra Local Authorities (Official Languages) Act, 2022. It observed that while Marathi is prescribed as the official language for municipal purposes, the statute does not impose an absolute prohibition on the use of additional languages.
Section 3(2) itself contemplates the use of English where effective communication so requires. This reflects legislative recognition that language functions as a medium of communication rather than an instrument of exclusion.
The Court held that displaying the name of a Municipal Council in an additional language does not amount to conducting official work in a language other than Marathi.
2. Constitutional Scheme under Article 345
Article 345 empowers the State Legislature to adopt any language in use in the State as its official language. Adoption of one official language does not constitutionally prohibit limited or supplementary use of another language.
The Court noted that several States and Union Territories recognize more than one official language or permit multiple languages for purposes of governance and communication.
3. Linguistic Diversity and Constitutional Tolerance
The Court underscored that India is a multilingual nation and linguistic plurality is a constitutional reality. Language reflects culture and community identity. The Constitution embodies tolerance in addressing linguistic diversity.
The use of Urdu in regions where it is understood by sections of the population promotes inclusive communication and does not undermine the primacy of Marathi as the official language.
4. Nature and Status of Urdu
The Court observed that Urdu is an Indian language that evolved within the subcontinent and forms part of India’s composite cultural heritage. It is not alien to India’s linguistic tradition.
The Court also noted the widespread usage of Urdu vocabulary in common and legal parlance across Indian courts, reflecting its embedded presence in public life.
Ratio Decidendi
The Maharashtra Local Authorities (Official Languages) Act, 2022 does not prohibit the use of Urdu as an additional language on a municipal signboard. Adoption of Marathi as the official language does not bar supplementary use of another language for effective communication, provided the statutory mandate is not violated.
IMRAN PRATAPGARHI v. STATE OF GUJARAT
Criminal Appeal No. 1545 of 2025
Bench: Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
Decided in 2025
1. Introduction
The Supreme Court examined the scope of criminal liability for speech under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) and the procedural safeguards under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), in light of Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.
2. Facts
The appellant, a sitting Member of the Rajya Sabha, posted on his verified ‘X’ account a video clip from a mass marriage ceremony in which a poem written in Urdu was recited.
The poem referred metaphorically to:
- Responding to injustice with love
- Sacrificing personal loss for truth
- Peaceful resistance
A complaint alleged that the poem promoted enmity, hatred, and harmed national unity. An FIR was registered under Sections 196, 197(1), 299, 302, 57 and 3(5) of the BNS.
The High Court declined to quash the FIR. The appellant approached the Supreme Court.
3. Issues
- Whether the poem attracted the alleged offences under the BNS.
- Whether registration of the FIR violated Article 19(1)(a).
- Whether a preliminary inquiry under Section 173(3) BNSS was required.
4. Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and quashed the FIR.
It held that:
- The FIR was registered mechanically without application of mind.
- No ingredients of the alleged offences were made out.
- The prosecution amounted to abuse of process.
- The appellant’s fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a) was violated.
5. Analysis
A. Interpretation of the Poem
The Court examined both the Urdu text and its English translation. It found:
- No reference to religion, caste, race, language or community.
- No promotion of disharmony.
- No threat to sovereignty or integrity.
- Clear advocacy of non-violence.
Metaphorical expression cannot be judged with hypersensitivity.
B. Ingredients Not Established
- Section 196 BNS: No promotion of hatred or disturbance of public tranquillity.
- Section 197 BNS: No imputation against protected groups.
- Sections 299 and 302 BNS: No deliberate intent to outrage religious feelings.
- Section 57 BNS: No act of abetment.
C. Mens Rea
Mens rea is essential in hate speech offences. In the absence of deliberate intention to promote hatred, criminal prosecution cannot stand.
D. Preliminary Inquiry under Section 173(3) BNSS
Where punishment ranges between three to seven years, preliminary inquiry may be required. Greater caution is necessary in matters involving speech.
E. Standard for Judging Speech
Speech must be assessed from the perspective of reasonable, strong-minded persons and not hypersensitive individuals. Democratic societies require tolerance of dissent.
Ratio
- Poetic or metaphorical dissent does not amount to promotion of enmity unless statutory ingredients are clearly established.
- Mens rea is indispensable in hate speech offences.
- FIRs in speech cases require careful application of mind.
- Courts may quash FIRs at the initial stage to protect constitutional freedoms.
SUKHDEV SINGH v. SUKHBIR KAUR
Civil Appeal No. 2536 of 2019
Bench: Justice Abhay S. Oka, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice Augustine G. Masih
Issues
- Whether a spouse of a marriage declared void under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is entitled to permanent alimony under Section 25.
- Whether maintenance pendente lite under Section 24 may be granted in nullity proceedings.
Decision
Both questions were answered in the affirmative.
A spouse to a void marriage is entitled to seek permanent alimony under Section 25. Maintenance pendente lite under Section 24 may also be granted during the pendency of proceedings, subject to statutory conditions.
Reasoning
Interpretation of Section 25
The phrase “any decree” includes decrees under Section 11 declaring marriage void. The statute does not distinguish between divorce and nullity decrees.
Section 25 aims to prevent financial destitution. Entitlement does not depend upon moral considerations regarding validity of marriage.
Distinguishing Section 125 CrPC Cases
Judgments under Section 125 CrPC operate in a separate statutory field and do not govern interpretation of Section 25 HMA.
The Court disapproved characterizations such as “illegitimate wife,” holding them inconsistent with dignity under Article 21.
Discretionary Nature
Sections 24 and 25 use the word “may.” Courts must consider equitable factors and conduct of parties.
Ratio
A decree of nullity under Section 11 falls within “any decree” under Section 25. A spouse in a void marriage is not automatically disentitled from maintenance. Relief remains discretionary.
URMILA DIXIT v. SUNIL SHARAN DIXIT
Civil Appeal No. 10927 of 2024
Bench: Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice C.T. Ravikumar
Issues
- Whether property transferred by a senior citizen subject to maintenance can be reclaimed under Section 23 of the 2007 Act.
- Whether authorities may order eviction and restore possession.
Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and cancelled the Gift Deed. It restored possession to the senior citizen.
Reasoning
Beneficial Interpretation
The 2007 Act is beneficial legislation and must receive liberal construction to advance its object of protecting elderly persons.
Application of Section 23
Two conditions must be satisfied:
- Transfer subject to condition of maintenance.
- Failure to fulfil that condition.
Both conditions were satisfied.
Power to Restore Possession
Authorities under Section 23 possess incidental power to order eviction and restore possession. Otherwise, the statutory purpose would be defeated.
Ratio
Where property is transferred subject to maintenance and the condition is breached, Section 23 empowers authorities to declare the transfer void and restore possession. The Act must be interpreted liberally to protect senior citizens.
Also Read: https://vidhigya.com/blog/landmark-judgments-2025-2026-for-clat-pg/
