The Supreme Court of India has raised important questions regarding the classification of English as a non-indigenous language within the Central Board of Secondary Education’s (CBSE) revised three-language policy. A bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V Mohana expressed concerns about the policy’s implications during a session on Thursday.
Justice Bagchi emphasized the need for a constitutional review of English’s status, citing its historical significance and its role as an official language in various Indian states. “We must carefully consider whether English, given its longstanding use, can truly be deemed a non-indigenous language,” noted Justice Bagchi. He also highlighted the colonial undertones associated with the term “native” and suggested that “indigenous” would be a more appropriate term.
The court’s inquiry followed arguments by the petitioners’ counsel, who contended that English should not be equated with foreign languages due to its entrenched presence in Indian education and governance. Justice Bagchi underscored the complexity of defining English as either a native or foreign language, given India’s historical context and the linguistic diversity within the nation.
During the proceedings, the bench delved into the broader issues surrounding the implementation of CBSE’s updated three-language scheme, which mandates that students study three languages from the 2026-27 academic year, with at least two being Indian languages. The petitioners argued that this policy forces students to abandon foreign languages they have studied for years, such as French, and start anew with another Indian language.
Senior Advocate Anand Grover, representing the petitioners, raised concerns about the timing of the policy’s implementation, pointing out that the academic year had already commenced when the CBSE announced the changes. Chief Justice Kant questioned the opposition to learning Indian languages, suggesting it could foster national integration. However, the petitioners clarified that their primary concern was the mid-course introduction of the policy, which disrupted students’ language choices.
More Read
Additionally, the petitioners argued that the revised policy had a retrospective effect on students who had already selected languages in earlier grades. Under the new guidelines, R1 would be the regional language, R2 could include English, and R3 would have to be a language other than R1 and R2, effectively sidelining English. Justice Bagchi proposed that students currently in Class 6 be exempted, allowing the policy to commence with future cohorts.
Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati was asked to consider extending transitional benefits to Class 6 students. CJI Kant, while not advocating for the abandonment of the policy, suggested that its implementation might require adjustments to address logistical challenges.
The petitioners also voiced concerns regarding teacher availability and learning materials. Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan highlighted the lack of infrastructure and qualified teachers for the 23 languages offered under the CBSE scheme. Justice Bagchi requested a detailed roadmap from the Centre on ensuring adequate resources and teacher availability.
More Read
ASG Bhati responded by asserting that most CBSE schools already complied with the two-Indian-language requirement, and a flexible staffing policy was in place for the transition. She clarified that initial assessments for new languages would be internal and not affect students’ progression.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court asked the Centre to re-evaluate the policy’s implementation, considering a phased introduction for current students, improving teacher resources, and determining the appropriate starting point for the new language requirement. CJI Kant suggested online classes for basic language instruction where teachers are unavailable, while the Court awaits further submissions from the CBSE and other stakeholders in the coming weeks.
