A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has been filed before the Supreme Court challenging a circular issued by the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) on May 15, mandating the study of three languages for students entering Class IX from the 2026–27 academic session.
The matter was mentioned before the Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul M Pancholi by Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, who sought urgent listing. The Court indicated that the plea would be listed next week.
Rohatgi submitted that the introduction of additional compulsory languages at the Class IX level would impose an abrupt academic burden, requiring students to take up a new language while simultaneously preparing for Class X board examinations within a limited timeframe.
Filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, the petition has been instituted by 19 petitioners, including students, parents and teachers from Delhi, Gurugram, Noida and Chennai. The respondents include the Union government, CBSE and the National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT).
As per the plea, the CBSE Circular No. Acad-33/2026 mandated that from July 1, 2026, Class IX students must study three languages designated as R1, R2 and R3, with at least two being Indian languages. It further stated that students opting for a foreign language may do so only as a third language, subject to the prescribed combination structure.
The petitioners argued that the circular departed from CBSE’s earlier clarification dated April 9, 2026, which had deferred implementation of the three-language requirement for Class IX students until the 2029–30 academic session. They submitted that schools and students had already structured academic planning on the basis of the earlier notification, adding that the revised mandate has created administrative uncertainty.
The plea alleged violation of Article 14 of the Constitution on the ground of manifest arbitrariness, citing the absence of adequate infrastructure, trained faculty and teaching material for implementation. It also pointed to provisions in the circular permitting interim measures such as deployment of teachers with functional proficiency and use of Class VI learning material supplemented for higher classes.
Invoking Article 21A, the petition contended that the right to education required meaningful pedagogical implementation and could not be reduced to compulsory subject allocation without adequate institutional support. It further stated that students pursuing foreign languages such as French and German may face disruption due to mid-stream changes in the language structure.
The petition also raised issues under Article 19(1)(g), arguing that the policy could adversely impact foreign language educators and institutions by limiting the scope of structured foreign language instruction within the CBSE framework.
It further submitted that the impugned circular was inconsistent with the National Education Policy, 2020, which emphasised flexibility and did not mandate the imposition of a particular language on States or students. Reliance was also placed on the National Curriculum Framework for School Education, 2023, and earlier CBSE notifications to argue that the revised mandate departed from the phased implementation approach.
The plea also referred to representations from parents and media reports annexed to the petition, stating that the policy has already caused confusion among schools and families. It cited instances of schools issuing communications adopting the revised structure, offering combinations such as Hindi, Sanskrit and French for Class IX students.
The petition sought quashing of the May 15 CBSE circular, restoration of the earlier April 9 notification deferring implementation until 2029–30, and interim protection against enforcement of the policy for current batches of students.
The post Plea filed in Supreme Court challenges CBSE three-language policy for Class IX students appeared first on India Legal.