NE LEGAL BUREAU
NEW DELHI, JULY 14
Can a school education policy alter the linguistic choices of students midway through an academic session? Does the CBSE possess the statutory authority to mandate such changes, or does that power rest exclusively with the NCERT under the Right to Education Act? These are among the significant constitutional and legal questions that have now reached the Supreme Court, setting the stage for another major judicial examination of India’s evolving education policy.
- Apex Court issues notice to CBSE, Centre and NCERT on new batch of petitions questioning legality, timing and constitutional validity of revised language policy
- Bench seeks responses within two weeks; detailed hearing fixed for July 29, declines interim stay on implementation at this stage
- Parents allege abrupt withdrawal of foreign languages, compulsory introduction of Indian languages violates RTE Act, NEP 2020 and fundamental rights
- Petitions question CBSE’s authority to prescribe Class VI curriculum and challenge classification of English under revised language framework
- Court to examine implementation concerns, statutory competence and constitutional issues as nationwide debate over school education policy intensifies
In a significant development, the Supreme Court on Tuesday issued notices to the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE), the Union Government and the National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT) on a fresh batch of petitions challenging the implementation of the revised three-language policy applicable to CBSE-affiliated schools.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohan directed the respondents to file their replies within two weeks and posted the matter for detailed hearing on July 29.
The Bench, however, declined to grant any interim stay on the operation of the impugned CBSE circulars at this stage.
Appearing for the CBSE, Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati assured the Court that the Board would submit its response within the stipulated time.
Fresh Challenge to Revised Language Policy
The latest petitions assail the CBSE Secondary School Curriculum (Classes IX-X) 2026-27 along with the Board’s circulars dated April 9 and May 4, alleging that they make the study of two Indian languages compulsory from Class VI onwards, thereby restricting students’ academic choices and infringing constitutional guarantees.
Represented by Senior Advocate Anand Grover, along with Advocates Tripti Tandon and Advocate-on-Record Rohit Kumar-I, the petitioners argued that the revised framework has been implemented without statutory authority and is constitutionally unsustainable.
According to the petition, the affected students are studying in Class VI in CBSE-affiliated private schools in the Delhi-NCR region and had previously opted for English, Hindi and a foreign language.
The plea alleges that after the academic session had already commenced, schools abruptly discontinued foreign language instruction and directed students to study Sanskrit, causing “enormous mental stress, anxiety and uncertainty.”
Questioning CBSE’s Legal Authority
A key legal issue raised before the apex court concerns the statutory competence of CBSE to prescribe the curriculum for elementary education.
The petition relies on Section 29 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, contending that only NCERT, as the notified academic authority, is empowered to formulate curriculum and academic standards for elementary education, including Class VI.
The petition states:
“The 2026-27 CBSE Curriculum has neither been developed nor issued by the Respondent No.3, as required by the RTE Act, 2009. It is therefore, without legal sanction and cannot be enforced in respect of children studying in Class VI.”
The petitioners further contend that implementing the revised curriculum after the commencement of the academic year is arbitrary, unreasonable and unconstitutional.
According to the plea: “The sudden imposition of changes in the linguistic curriculum for Class VI, after the commencement of the academic year… is arbitrary and unconstitutional.”
The petition also points out that schools were directed to comply with the revised curriculum within seven days, resulting in the discontinuation of foreign language teaching “overnight”.
Concerns Over Academic Preparedness
The petition questions how the revised policy can be effectively implemented when textbooks, syllabi and teaching materials are yet to be finalised.
It notes that NCERT itself has reconstituted the committee responsible for developing school syllabi and textbooks, making immediate implementation practically difficult.
The petition argues: “It is inconceivable how the new linguistic curriculum will be implemented without proper syllabi and teaching and learning materials.”
Fundamental Rights Challenge
The petitioners have also invoked Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, contending that the revised policy violates the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression.
Reliance has been placed on the Constitution Bench judgment in State of Karnataka vs. Associated Management of English Medium Primary and Secondary Schools (2014).
Another major challenge relates to the policy’s classification of English as a non-native language.
The petition argues that since English is one of the official languages of the Union under the Official Languages Act, 1963, it cannot be treated on par with foreign languages such as French, German or Spanish.
According to the petition, compelling students to choose between English and a foreign language is “irrational and arbitrary.”
Alleged Discrimination and NEP Concerns
The petition further alleges that the revised framework discriminates against students studying in CBSE-affiliated schools by effectively denying them opportunities to study foreign languages, while similar options continue to remain available under several international education boards.
It also argues that the revised framework runs contrary to the spirit of the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020, which emphasises flexibility, learner choice and academic autonomy, instead compelling students to study two Indian languages irrespective of their interests or future aspirations.
Earlier Petitions Already Pending
The Supreme Court is already hearing an earlier batch of petitions challenging the same policy.
In May, another Bench headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant had issued notices to the Union Government, CBSE and NCERT while agreeing to examine the validity of the revised framework applicable to Class IX students.
At that stage too, the Court had declined interim relief, observing that implementation-related concerns—including the availability of teachers and study material—would be examined during the proceedings, while constitutional questions would be addressed during the final hearing.
CBSE’s Clarification
Meanwhile, CBSE has issued further implementation guidelines stating that, for the current batch of Class IX students, the third language (R3) will not be a Board examination subject in the Class X Board Examination.
However, students will still be required to successfully complete the school-based assessment in the third language to become eligible for the CBSE Secondary School Examination Pass Certificate.
The Board has also clarified that students promoted to Class X without clearing the Class IX third-language assessment will be permitted another opportunity during the following academic year.
Students entering Class VI from the 2026-27 academic session, however, are expected to eventually face a Board examination in the third language once the revised curriculum and textbooks are fully implemented.
