The Supreme Court, while indicating a reluctance to interfere with a law that mandates all shops and establishments in Maharashtra to display signboards in Marathi or Devanagari script, asked the Federation of Retail Traders Welfare Association, the petitioners in the case, to comply with the regulation, pending consideration of their challenge to it.

The Bench of Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan at the outset raised the question, "Why can't you put a board in Marathi language?" The Advocate representing the Association responded that the majority of their members have indeed complied with the requirement. However, Justice Nagarathna commented, "Ask the rest of them to comply."

The counsel continued, "What we are alleging is they have made it mandatory to make it in a particular font size.. that may not be necessary. It is just tokenism. The size of the Marathi language has to be equal to any other language and has to be before any other language.."

To this, the bench pointed out that the same rule applies in Karnataka and urged the Petitioners to comply. In objection, the petitioner stated, there is a legal issue which needs to be addressed. The bench inquired, "What is the legal issue? What fundamental right is at stake?"

The petitioner explained, "The extent of state encroachment...". In response, the bench said, "If your contention is that there is state encroachment in Bombay, then we will dismiss your petition. Comply with the regulation." The petitioner's Counsel then requested, "Give us some time. There are 6 lakh shops. Give us one year."

Justice Nagarathna replied, "Now it is the time to have a Marathi sign board because the shopping begins for Dushera and Diwali. You don't know the benefit of having a name in Marathi along with English or Hindi. You are in Maharashtra. I am not saying anything. One new signboard... make it part of your business expenditure. If we send you the High Court, you will be visited with a heavy cost."

Justice Ujjal Bhuyan then asked, "Consider the other side as well. There will be employment opportunities for painters and others."

Accordingly, the Court ordered, "Without prejudice to the contentions raised in the Writ Petition, learned counsel for the Petitioner sought 2 months time to comply with mandates of the rules impugned in the Writ Petition. Her submission is placed on record. Hence adjourned to first-week of December 2023." The Court did not accede to the request for more time to comply with the regulation.

The State had brought in the impugned regulation mandating Marathi signboards with certain specifications through the Maharashtra Shops and Establishments Amendment Act, 2022.

Cause Title: Federation Of Retail Traders Welfare Association Vs. The State Of Maharashtra [Diary No.- 26432 - 2022]

Justice BV NagarathanaJustice Ujjal BhuyanMaharashtra

Ramey Krishan Rana