The Supreme Court on August 20 urged the Centre, CBSE and NCERT to revisit the implementation of the three-language policy, stressing that students should not face additional academic pressure.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana was hearing petitions challenging the policy for Classes 6 to 9. The court said there was “nothing wrong” with introducing a third language but asked authorities to address practical hurdles, including the availability of teachers, textbooks and appropriate learning material.
It also questioned the classification of English as a “non-native” language and suggested that the current Class 6 batch could receive a one-time reprieve if implementation was proving difficult.
Petitioners argued that some schools were unprepared, while Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, representing the Centre and CBSE, said officials had the necessary material and arrangements and that the additional language would be internally assessed, without students being held back for failing it. The matter will be heard again after 10 days.
Court Puts Children First
The Supreme Court’s latest intervention has shifted the focus of the CBSE three-language debate from whether children should learn more languages to how that learning should be introduced.
During the hearing, CJI Surya Kant told Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati that the policy could eventually be implemented, but the “impediments” and “blockades” arising during its rollout needed to be addressed.
“We don’t want the children to come under any pressure,” the CJI said, while asking the authorities to streamline the policy. The bench also questioned whether schools across the country have enough teachers and learning resources to introduce languages that students may never have studied before.
Senior advocate Anand Grover, appearing for petitioners concerned about the Class 6 rollout, highlighted the difficulty of expecting students to suddenly learn languages such as Punjabi or Tamil without first having access to basic material such as alphabets and foundational lessons.
Another petitioner-side argument concerned textbooks, with the court being told that some schools were still struggling to obtain the required material months into the academic year.
Bhati, however, disputed the suggestion that the government was unprepared, saying officials were present with relevant material and offering to show the court information and screenshots regarding the availability of textbooks.
She also told the court that the additional language requirement would involve internal assessment and that there was no question of Class 9 students being stopped from progressing because they did not pass the additional languages.
Why The Policy Is Contested
CBSE introduced the revised language framework as part of its alignment with the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 and the National Curriculum Framework for School Education, 2023. Under CBSE’s June 29 clarification, students entering Class IX in 2026-27 are required to study three languages, with at least two being Bharatiya Bhashas.
Students already studying two non-Indian languages have received a one-time relaxation to continue those languages while adding one Indian language. CBSE has also clarified that the third language, or R3, will be assessed internally for the transitional Class IX batch, with no CBSE Board examination in R3 when those students reach Class X.
For Class VI and subsequent batches, two of the three languages must be Bharatiya Bhashas, while a non-native language can be chosen as R3 if the other two are Indian languages. The controversy has centred on whether schools have sufficient time, teachers and resources to implement the framework without disrupting students’ education.
The Supreme Court has also questioned the description of English as a “non-native” language, noting its established role in India’s institutions, including the courts. The bench asked authorities to consider where the appropriate starting point for three-language learning should be Class 6, Class 4 or even Class 3 rather than introducing an additional language at a stage when students may already face greater academic demands.
The issue has been before the court since May, when it sought responses from the Centre, CBSE and NCERT on petitions challenging the mandatory three-language requirement. In July, the court had declined to stay the policy, while another Supreme Court judge, Justice B.V. Nagarathna, had separately observed that introducing a third language in Class 9 could be stressful for students preparing for board examinations.
The Logical Indian’s Perspective
Learning another language can open doors to another culture, literature, community and way of seeing the world. India’s linguistic diversity is one of its greatest strengths, and encouraging children to engage with Indian languages can be a meaningful educational goal. But good policy cannot be measured only by what it intends to achieve; it must also be judged by how it affects the children expected to live with it.
If a student is asked to learn a new language, the system must first ensure that there is a trained teacher, suitable textbook, adequate classroom time and a realistic learning pathway. The Supreme Court’s emphasis on avoiding pressure is therefore important because education should expand a child’s opportunities, not turn another subject into a source of anxiety.
Also read: Reservation Hatao Andolan: Delhi Police Issues NOC For 500-Person Protest At Ramlila Ground
