Three-language policy: What did SC question and what has it urged CBSE to reconsider?

In a significant development for school education in India, the Supreme Court of India on Thursday questioned several aspects of the Central Board of Secondary Education's (CBSE) newly introduced three-language policy. The policy, which made the study of three languages compulsory for Class 9 students from July 1, 2026, has faced a wave of legal challenges from concerned parents, schools, and educators. A three-judge bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V Mohana heard a batch of pleas raising serious practical and constitutional doubts about how this major change is being implemented on the ground.

What is the CBSE’s Three-Language Mandate?

The contentious policy is part of the CBSE's ongoing efforts to align its curriculum with the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 and the National Curriculum Framework for School Education (NCF-SE) 2023. Under this directive, CBSE issued a circular on May 15 stating: "With effect from July 1, 2026, for Class IX, the study of three languages (R1, R2, R3) shall be compulsory, with at least two languages being native Indian languages,".

To operationalise this, the board has given schools and students options across 23 languages. For schools, this meant rapidly updating their language offerings on the board's OASIS portal by a June 30 deadline. For students, it meant a sudden addition to their academic workload. The board tried to reassure families by choosing to run the third language (R3) books from the Class 6 syllabus (2026-27 edition) as a temporary measure until dedicated Class 9 textbooks are published. To prevent academic failure, CBSE decided that no board examination would be held for this third language at the Class 10 level.

The Core Worry: Books, Teachers, and Sudden Pressures

Despite these assurances, families are worried. Senior advocate Anand Grover, representing some of the petitioners, raised the alarm in court, pointing out that students are already four months into their academic year. Yet, they do not have books. Many schools lack the necessary infrastructure or qualified language teachers to teach these subjects.

Grover painted a vivid picture of the classroom struggle: "How do I suddenly learn Punjabi, Tamil, or compound sentences? We have to start with the alphabet. See the books; they start with compound sentences,".

The bench, however, noted that the specialized language courses had not actually commenced yet. The judges expressed confidence that the authorities would have an implementation plan ready. "The courses have not yet started. I am sure they have a plan. Teachers will be there," observed Justice V Mohana. The court made it clear that schools cannot simply ignore their staffing duties. "If they are introducing a language, they will also have plan for teachers. It is their obligation," the bench remarked, warning that it would take erring schools to task.

No Failing: The Relief for Class 9 Students

One of the biggest concerns for parents is whether children will fail their academic year if they cannot master a brand-new language. Grover argued that forcing children to secure passing marks in a newly introduced language would put them under immense pressure.

In a major relief, Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Aishwarya Bhati, appearing for the CBSE and the Centre, clarified that the third language would not decide a student’s academic promotion. "The scheme contemplates only internal assessment. There is no holding back [failing] Class 9 students -- even if they don't qualify, they will go to Class 10," Bhati submitted.

She explained that different parts of NEP 2020 are being rolled out gradually. This specific exercise introduces the mother-tongue component. Bhati argued that the five-year stretch from Class 5 to Class 10 provides students with ample time to learn these languages.

Can Students Keep Learning Foreign Languages?

Many Indian students study foreign languages, such as French, for career and higher education opportunities. Parents were deeply anxious that the mandatory three-language policy, requiring two "native" Indian languages, would force students to abandon their foreign language studies.

Grover argued that a student who has already been learning French should be allowed to continue. He stressed that forcing a student from one state to learn the language of another Indian state would impose an extra burden on them.

The Chief Justice offered absolute clarity on this point. "There is no question of boycotting languages taught earlier. They can continue," Chief Justice Surya Kant said.

Under the current rules, students opting for a foreign language can still study it, but only as a third language after choosing two native Indian languages, or as an additional fourth language. The CJI also encouraged a spirit of national integration through language, asking: "Is it not going to be good for the nation if North Indian students learn South Indian languages and South Indian students learn North Indian languages?".

Finding a Gradual Rollout and Ending "Inferiority Complex"

Rather than rushing the policy's implementation, the Supreme Court emphasized that the government must protect children from unnecessary stress. "We don't want the children to come under any pressure," the Chief Justice stressed.

The judges suggested that the government reconsider its starting points and perhaps ease the transition. "If you have chosen Class 6 as the starting point, you may consider giving a reprieve to Class 6 students of this year. You can introduce it from next year," the bench noted.

They also suggested that the CBSE look closely at where the language options begin in school curriculums. "Another thing which needs to be looked into is where do you draw the line. Whether it is Class 6, Class 4 or Class 3. You can take a call depending on the curriculum and where the choice between two and three languages is first introduced," the bench advised.

Crucially, the Court urged that the policy's rollout must not make regional languages seem secondary. "Let us not have any impression of inferiority complex with respect to regional languages. We should respect all these languages as much as any other language," the bench remarked. Later in the hearing, the CJI repeated this crucial sentiment: "Let us not have any impression of an inferiority complex when it comes to regional languages. Let us all respect all languages,".

Saving Local Languages vs. Forcing Students

The courtroom debate also touched upon how local languages can be preserved. Advocate G Priyadarshini, appearing for a petitioner running regional schools, argued that every state must require students to study the local language. "That is how we save our languages," Priyadarshini argued.

However, the Supreme Court cautioned against excessive coercion. "That is called forcing them. Even if you force someone to learn their mother tongue, they will have a problem," the Court observed.

The bench noted that the CBSE had designed the internal assessments specifically to avoid putting undue pressure on students. However, practical questions remained, especially regarding specialized language teachers. Justice Bagchi pointedly asked: "How many Sanskrit teachers are B.Ed. qualified in our schools?".

The Debate Over "Colonial" Words and English

A fascinating constitutional and linguistic debate emerged regarding the language used by the framers of the policy. Justice Joymalya Bagchi raised serious objections to the policy’s use of the word "native", pointing out that it carries historical baggage.

"It has a colonial connotation. It should be indigenous," Justice Bagchi remarked, noting that the policy makers should have been more careful.

He went on to challenge how English is categorized: "To what extent can English be considered a non-indigenous language? I have reservations about the expression 'native' because of its colonial origin. It should be 'indigenous'. The framers of the National Education Policy 2020 should have been conscious of the use of the word 'native'," he said.

The bench highlighted that the court will have to examine the constitutional questions surrounding English. "Whether English can be termed indigenous or non-indigenous, we have to see its constitutionality," Justice Bagchi noted.

The Road Ahead: Expert Panels and Real-World Experience

In concluding the session, the Supreme Court decided not to halt the policy immediately, choosing instead to let schools experience it and address issues as they emerge. "Whatever has been introduced, let it be experienced. After experience, some difficulties will come, then we will examine," Chief Justice Surya Kant said.

The bench suggested that the CBSE and the Centre use this time to fix the practical blockages. "Some of these problems, you may revisit. There is no doubt that sooner or later, it has to be introduced. There is nothing wrong with that. But how it is to be streamlined so that whatever impediments or blockades are coming up, you may find a solution to those," the bench advised ASG Bhati.

To help CBSE, the Court suggested: "These doubts you may revisit. How to streamline the policy? Yours is an expert body,".

The CJI also proposed forming a dedicated committee of domain experts to monitor the implementation and make recommendations. "We can constitute an expert committee ourselves or ask the government to constitute an expert committee so that as and when the difficulties arise, they can make recommendations and find solutions," the bench stated.

To ensure all stakeholders are heard, the Court has suggested collaborative solutions. "Let us, as an educational institution, suggest what modalities and suggestions can be brought in," the CJI said. ASG Bhati, representing the government's stance, assured the bench: "We want to support our children in the best possible manner", explaining that "Language is a vehicle of a culture" and that thousands of experts had been consulted.

The Supreme Court has posted the matter for further hearing after 10 days to examine both the constitutional and practical dimensions of the policy.