The Supreme Court on Wednesday agreed to examine the validity of the Central Board of Secondary Education's recent policy mandating three languages, two of which must be Indian languages, for Class IX. Parents termed the policy a sure recipe for chaos and confusion due to the absence of trained teachers, required textbooks, and denial of choice to students.
Court Proceedings and Requests for Stay
Many lawyers, including Mukul Rohatgi, Kapil Sibal, and Shraddha Deshmukh, repeatedly requested a stay on the implementation of the policy, which is to come into force from July 1. However, a bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi parried the request. The bench stated, "The object of the three-language policy can be salutary, but we understand the difficulty faced by students in the absence of infrastructural and teaching support."
Federalism and Reasonableness
The Supreme Court did not agree with the contention that the three-language scheme impinges on federalism. However, it said the policy can be examined on the ground of reasonableness in view of infrastructure constraints. The bench entertained a bunch of petitions, led by one filed by parents and teachers from the National Capital Region and Chennai, seeking a comprehensive affidavit dealing with all issues flagged by petitioners related to implementation of the policy. The court said it would dedicate a day for its adjudication in the second week of July.
"There is a silver lining as there is no examination right now," the Chief Justice said, but recognized the importance of pleas of hardship and inconvenience that could be caused to students in the absence of trained teachers and textbooks in Indian languages. The Supreme Court issued notices to the education ministry, CBSE, and NCERT.
Government's Response
Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati said the policy had been crafted after a lot of deliberations and the court must await the reaction of students after its implementation before adjudicating its validity.
Arguments from Petitioners
Kapil Sibal argued that the insistence on two native languages deprived students of having an informed choice and raised issues of federalism. Justice Bagchi was quick to respond, stating there is no issue of federalism as more and more languages are added to the eighth schedule, terming them as national languages. "But this could be an issue of unreasonableness when trained teachers and books are not available in the schools," he added.
Petition Details
The lead petition, filed through advocate Deshmukh by 17 parents and two teachers of children studying in Delhi, Noida, Gurgaon, and Chennai in CBSE-affiliated schools, said the new policy is contrary to CBSE's April 9 notification categorically assuring that the third language is "not applicable till the academic session 2029-30 at the Class IX level." However, the change of policy to three languages, of which two must be Indian, on May 15—after commencement of the session for 2026-27, allocation of languages, and finalization of timetables—will cause irreversible harm to thousands of Class IX students and take away the livelihood of many teachers proficient in teaching foreign languages, as they would have to make way for teachers who can teach regional languages, the petition said.
It said the problem for students and teachers is aggravated by the non-availability of textbooks and teaching material, and CBSE making ad hoc arrangements by asking students to learn the basics of the second Indian language from Class VI textbooks. "Mandating a compulsory subject without textbooks, trained teachers, or an assessment framework does not amount to quality education; it is a constitutional violation," the petition said, and requested the Supreme Court to stop CBSE from making such compromises on quality education.
