The Supreme Court ruled on Friday that no coercive action should be taken against members of a Mumbai retailers’ association in connection with the enforcement of a law requiring shop signboards in Marathi.
A Bench of Justices KM Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy ordered the petitioners to provide a list of their members who will be protected by the temporary protection.
The problem originates from the Maharashtra government changing Rule 35 of the Maharashtra Shops and Establishments (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Rules to require Marathi (written in Devanagiri script) signboards for all shops.
In July, the Supreme Court issued a notice to the Maharashtra government on the current case, which challenges this government decision.
The Federation of Retail Traders Welfare Association filed the petition in response to a Bombay High Court judgement on February 23 that supported the State government’s decision to impose Marathi signboards. The petitioners argued before the High Court that the Rules breached Part III of the Constitution because they restricted freedom of expression by requiring any institution with more than ten employees to have a signboard in Marathi. The argument was that the state cannot tell its residents what language a signboard must show.
However, a High Court Bench of Justices Gautam Patel and Madhav Jamdar upheld the Law, emphasising in its judgement that using other languages on display boards was not forbidden, and that the rule only required the name to be displayed in Marathi. Justice Jamdar explained that the Rule was enacted for the benefit of the general public in Maharashtra, whose mother tongue is Marathi.
The government went beyond the boundaries of its authorised legislative powers, according to the petition before the Supreme Court. According to others, the Marathi rule has no reasonable connection with it and has resulted in significant financial obligations for retailers.
In particular, the petition claims that the High Court judgement ignores Mumbai’s cosmopolitan environment and allows persons engaged in private business to have their fundamental rights usurped under the guise of public purpose and convenience of doing business.”
CASE: Federation of Retail Traders Welfare Association & Anr v. State of Maharashtra & Ors