The Supreme Court on Wednesday sought a detailed response from the Union Government, the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) and the National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT) on a batch of petitions challenging the CBSE’s revised mandatory third-language policy for students from the 2026–27 academic session.
The Bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul M Pancholi directed the respondents to place on record a comprehensive response regarding the logistical, infrastructural and administrative preparedness for implementation of the revised framework and listed the matter for further hearing in the second week of July.
The petitions challenge CBSE Circular No. Acad-33/2026 dated May 15, 2026, which mandates that students from Class IX onwards must study three languages identified as R1, R2 and R3, with at least two being Indian languages. Under the revised framework, foreign languages such as French or German can be studied only as a third language where the remaining two are Indian languages, or alternatively as an additional fourth language. The petitions also challenge implementation of the revised language framework from middle-school levels, including Class VI.
During the hearing, CJI Kant observed that implementation of the revised policy could involve significant logistical issues concerning the availability of teachers, textbooks and institutional preparedness across schools affiliated with the Board. He observed that learning additional languages could strengthen the federal structure and promote greater national integration.
Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the petitioners, submitted that the revised policy was being implemented within an extremely short timeframe without adequate infrastructure or academic preparation. Referring to practical difficulties likely to arise for students already studying foreign languages, Rohatgi argued that students in States such as Tamil Nadu who were studying Tamil, English and French would now be compelled to study an additional Indian language under the revised framework.
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing in a connected matter, contended that the issue raised substantial constitutional and federal concerns relating to language policy, federalism and individual choice. It was argued that language remains a matter of personal and educational choice and cannot be imposed through abrupt executive action.
Justice Joymalya Bagchi, however, observed that at the present stage, the Court was primarily concerned with practical implementation issues such as the availability of teachers, textbooks and educational infrastructure, rather than the broader federalism debate.
The Bench initially indicated that the matter could be heard on June 15. However, after submissions made by Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati on behalf of the Union Government, the hearing was deferred to July. Bhati submitted that implementation of the policy would remain subject to further orders of the Supreme Court.
The petitioners also sought interim protection against the implementation of the circular from July 1, 2026. The Supreme Court, however, declined to pass any interim directions at this stage.
The writ petitions have been filed under Article 32 of the Constitution by a group of parents and teachers from Delhi, Gurugram, Noida and Chennai, challenging the constitutional validity of the CBSE circular.
According to the petitions, the revised policy marks a departure from an earlier CBSE communication dated April 9, 2026, wherein the Board had reportedly stated that compulsory implementation of the third-language requirement for Class IX students would be deferred until the academic session 2029–30.
The petitioners contended that schools, students and parents had already structured their academic planning based on the earlier representation and that the abrupt policy reversal shortly before the commencement of the academic year had resulted in uncertainty and administrative disruption.
The pleas further alleged that the circular is manifestly arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution by mandating immediate compliance despite acknowledged shortages of qualified language teachers, textbooks and institutional resources. The petitions pointed out that the circular itself permits temporary arrangements such as deployment of teachers from unrelated disciplines possessing only functional proficiency in the language concerned and use of lower-grade textbooks supplemented with local teaching material.
The petitioners also invoked Article 21A, contending that the constitutional guarantee of meaningful and quality education cannot be fulfilled through compulsory imposition of subjects without adequate pedagogical infrastructure, trained faculty and curriculum preparedness. It was further argued that compelling students who have studied foreign languages for several years to abruptly alter their course structure causes academic disadvantage and disrupts educational continuity.
Additionally, the pleas raised a challenge under Article 19(1)(g), asserting that the revised framework may adversely affect foreign language teachers, educational institutions and training centres offering internationally recognised language instruction by effectively displacing foreign languages from the mainstream three-language structure.
The petitioners further argued that the impugned circular is inconsistent with the principles underlying the National Education Policy, 2020, which emphasises flexibility and expressly states that no language should be imposed upon any State or student. Reliance has also been placed upon the National Curriculum Framework for School Education, 2023 and earlier CBSE notifications to contend that the mandatory implementation from 2026 is contrary to the phased rollout mechanism previously communicated by the Board.
The petitions seek quashing of the circular dated May 15, 2026, restoration of the earlier policy deferring compulsory implementation until the 2029–30 academic session and interim protection against enforcement of the revised language framework pending adjudication.
The post Supreme Court issues notice on pleas challenging CBSE mandatory third-language policy appeared first on India Legal.