The Supreme Court on Tuesday issued notice on petitions challenging the Central Board of Secondary Education’s (CBSE) circulars mandating the learning of two languages native to India as part of the three-language formula for Class 9 students.
The top court granted the CBSE two weeks to file its reply. The matter will next be heard on July 22.
Appearing for the petitioners, senior advocate G Sankaranarayanan said, “We are here for Class 9 students. First, the most practical problem is that one state has said that by July 1 all books have to be available. As of now, books for only 3 of the 22 languages are available. This also creates a manpower issue because there are no teachers.”
He further submitted, “We are appearing in two different batches of fresh matters. For senior classes, there has been dilution. They have taken a 300-year-old language and treated English as a non-native language. They say a non-native language is different from a native language. Now they are treating English as a non-native language.”
During the hearing, Justice Joymalya Bagchi questioned the terminology used in the policy, saying, “We don’t understand this word ‘native’ language. Native Indian language may also be understood as an Indian indigenous language.”
He further observed, “The notification is carrying forward the constitutional goal of learning Hindi and other Indian languages. The nomenclature may require some relook. The spirit is very clear. The question is, can Indians consider English an Indian indigenous language? At one point, Persian was the language of this court, but is it there in the Eighth Schedule?”
Senior advocate Anand Grover argued, “The circulars are without the authority of law. Only NCERT has the authority, not CBSE. They are imposing languages without giving options. There are no teachers and no books available if I want to learn Punjabi instead of Sanskrit. As a child, I must have the opportunity to learn a language that will give me employment.”
Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi also questioned the implementation of the policy, saying, “Where is the infrastructure? Which school has teachers for 20 languages? A Class 9 student has to study till Classes 10 to 12, and they are already under immense pressure.”
Senior advocate Shyam Divan pointed out that the policy was originally intended to be implemented by 2030 and asked why it was being introduced in haste.
Senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan submitted that the CBSE is now asking students to drop English and a foreign language and opt for a native Indian language instead.
The court in May had also sought responses from the Centre, the CBSE, and the National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT) on a similar petition challenging the CBSE circular mandating the study of three languages, including two Indian languages, for students in Classes 6 to 9.
The plea challenged a May 15 CBSE circular aligning its scheme of studies with the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 and the National Curriculum Framework for School Education (NCFSE) 2023.
Under the revised framework, students in Classes 6 to 9 from July 2026 are required to study three languages, with at least two being Indian languages.
The petitioners, including parents and teachers from multiple cities, have argued that the sudden implementation imposes an additional academic burden in the middle of the academic session. They also contend that it disrupts preparation for the Class 10 board examinations and lacks adequate infrastructure, including trained teachers and textbooks.
They have further raised concerns about the policy’s uneven regional impact and the lack of clarity on the evaluation pattern for the additional language.
