The Supreme Court on Thursday heard a batch of petitions challenging aspects of the CBSE’s three-language policy, with the Bench examining concerns over its implementation, availability of teachers and learning material, language choice and the impact on students who had already opted for foreign languages.
Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan sought urgent relief for students in Classes 5 and 6, submitting that the academic year was already four months underway and that several schools still lacked textbooks and teachers for the newly required languages. He submitted that students were also being prevented from continuing languages they had already been studying.
“
“We are four months into the year. Textbooks are still not there. They don’t have teachers. They have stopped us from studying languages we have been studying. It affects three million children. At least spare our children, please.”
Appearing for another batch of petitioners, Senior AdvocateAnand Grover questioned the CBSE’s authority to frame the curriculum for Classes 6 to 8, submitting that the statutory authority in this regard lies with NCERT. He also raised concerns over students who had been studying foreign languages such as French and were now being required to shift to another language.
The bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana was, however, not inclined to disrupt the implementation altogether. The CJI observed that learning another Indian language could promote national integration and said that students who were already studying a language should not have that choice disrupted.
“
“Whatever has been done, shall not be disrupted. Even if this year they introduce without any compulsion of examination, in fact the children should be persuaded to learn.”
The counsel raised question whether students could continue studying a foreign language while being introduced to an additional Indian language, and whether the requirement of examination could be relaxed so that students were not placed under unnecessary academic pressure.
A major concern before the Bench was whether schools had adequate qualified teachers, textbooks and other learning resources to implement the three-language structure across the 23 language options. Justice Joymala Bagchi specifically asked how adequate infrastructure could be created and questioned whether the authorities had sufficient qualified B.Ed. teachers, including for languages such as Sanskrit. He suggested that the authorities reconsider the implementation for students who had already made their language choices and examine how far the reprieve could be extended.
The Bench also questioned the use of the expression “native language” in the policy. Justice Bagchi said she had reservations about the terminology and observed that the status of English, which is an official language and has deep roots in Indian society, required consideration.
Justice Bagchi identified three issues requiring reconsideration: the point from which students should receive a reprieve, the infrastructure and human resources required for the third language, and the stage at which the language choice should begin. He suggested that a reprieve be extended to Class 6 students, noting that this would immediately address concerns regarding retrospective application.
The CJI also asked what was happening under other school boards. Counsel submitted that there was no similar change in the ICSE and State Board systems and that those boards did not adopt the same “native/non-native” classification.
Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, appearing for the Centre, defended the policy and submitted that the framework provides for internal assessment, rather than a conventional board examination, and that students would not be held back merely for failing to qualify.
She also informed the Bench that CBSE constitutes only a small proportion of schools nationally and that the overwhelming majority of CBSE schools were already compliant with the requirement concerning two Indian languages. The Centre submitted that schools had also been permitted flexibility in staffing and that students would initially be taught the foundational aspects of the languages.
The ASG further submitted that the policy was being rolled out in phases and that the National Education Policy, 2020 had contemplated a longer implementation period.
The petitioners again raised concerns over the academic burden on students, particularly those in Classes 9 and 10. A parent appearing in the matter submitted that students could end up facing 11 examinations instead of five, while also questioning whether providing textbooks online amounted to meaningful access to education.
The CJI responded that if schools were failing to implement the policy properly, the Court would address such violations.
The Bench indicated that the constitutional questions concerning the policy would be adjudicated after hearing all parties, while asking the authorities to examine the immediate concerns regarding students who had already made their language choices, availability of teachers and infrastructure, and the manner in which the policy should be phased.