Back
Supreme Court Questions English as , Asks CBSE to Revisit
The on Thursday questioned the classification of English as a non-indigenous or under the Central Board of Secondary Education’s (CBSE) revised , raising a that could have far-reaching implications for language education in the country. A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V Mohana urged the board, the Union government, and the to revisit the rollout of the policy, particularly the treatment of English and the burden it imposes on students.
The court was hearing a challenging CBSE circulars that mandate the study of three languages—at least two of which must be —for Class 9 students from the . While the bench declined to the policy, it flagged several implementation hurdles, including the availability of teachers, textbooks, and the sudden switch in language requirements for students already midway through their schooling.
Court Questions English's Classification
During the hearing, Justice Joymalya Bagchi expressed serious reservations about the use of the term “native” in the policy, calling it a remnant of colonialism and urging the use of “indigenous” instead. “We have to examine the issue as to the extent to which English can be considered a ,” Justice Bagchi observed. “I personally have serious reservations about the expression ‘native’. It has a very colonial connotation. It should be ‘indigenous’.”
The judge highlighted the deep historical roots of English in Indian society and noted that several states have adopted English as an . “That perhaps requires a , having regard to our historical experience and the fact that States have English as an ,” Justice Bagchi said. The observation suggests that the court may eventually need to determine whether English, given its widespread use in administration, judiciary, and education, can be treated as a foreign or under constitutional schemes.
Required
The bench’s remarks signal that the dispute may transcend mere policy and enter the realm of constitutional interpretation. The petitioners argued that English, being an of the Union and the language of the Supreme Court, cannot be equated with a foreign language. , appearing for the CBSE and the Centre, defended the policy, stating that while English is an , it cannot be regarded as a native language. “Language is the vehicle of a culture,” Bhati submitted.
Justice Bagchi, however, pressed for a deeper , stating that the classification of English as non-indigenous “raises a deeper question” that must be examined. The court’s willingness to entertain this issue could set a precedent for how linguistic policies are evaluated under the Constitution, particularly in light of the and the directive to promote the spread of Hindi and other Indian languages.
Relief for Class 6 Students?
Another key point of discussion was the policy’s impact on students currently in Class 6, who would be the first cohort to face the new language requirements in Class 9. The court suggested that the CBSE consider giving a to these students, allowing the policy to apply to the next batch instead. “If the starting point you have chosen is Class 6, consider giving a to the Class 6 students of this year. You can introduce it from next year,” Justice Bagchi said.
The judge noted that students who have already committed to a particular language should not be forced to change course. “If students who have already committed to a particular language are given a , I think the immediate concern of the petitioners can be addressed,” he observed. The bench also questioned the practicality of implementing the policy for students who have been studying a language for several years and are now being asked to abandon it.
Implementation Concerns: Teachers and Textbooks
The court expressed serious doubts about the infrastructure available in CBSE schools to teach the range of languages offered under the policy—up to 23 language options. “CBSE must inform us how many of its schools actually have the teaching capacity and learning tools necessary to offer this range of languages,” Justice Bagchi directed.
, appearing for some petitioners, highlighted that textbooks for the new languages begin with compound sentences, assuming prior knowledge, whereas students who have never studied the language would need to start with the alphabet. “How do I suddenly learn Punjabi, Tamil, or compound sentences? We have to start with the alphabet. See the books; they start with compound sentences,” Grover submitted.
Additional Solicitor General Bhati claimed that 99.19 percent of CBSE schools already comply with the requirement of teaching two Indian languages, leaving only about 235 schools non-compliant. She assured the court that the government had made necessary arrangements and that officials were present with material to demonstrate preparedness. However, the bench remained unconvinced, seeking a roadmap on teacher availability and learning tools.
Petitioners' Arguments
argued that the policy effectively forces students to abandon languages they have studied for years. “What we have been studying all these years, for the last five years, is suddenly taken away from us,” he told the bench. He also raised concerns over the lack of notice and the absence of textbooks and teachers in many schools, affecting approximately three million children.
Another petitioner, , argued that each state should prescribe its own regional language to preserve local languages. The court cautioned against forcing students to learn a particular language, noting that “even if you force someone to learn their mother tongue, they will have a problem.” The Chief Justice, however, questioned whether promoting Indian languages could be seen as contrary to national interest, asking whether it would benefit a North Indian student to learn a South Indian language.
The Road Ahead
The Supreme Court’s intervention has placed the CBSE’s under intense scrutiny. The bench has given the board ten days to go back to the drawing board and propose solutions to the issues raised. Chief Justice Surya Kant emphasized that while the introduction of the policy is not wrong per se, the manner of its implementation needs to be streamlined. “Please revisit it. No doubt, ultimately, this has to be introduced. There is nothing wrong with that. But as to how it is to be streamlined, whatever impediments, blockades or teething issues are coming up, you may find solutions to those,” he said.
The court also questioned whether the policy could be introduced at a lower class level to allow parents and students more time to adjust. With the next hearing scheduled after ten days, the legal community is watching closely. The case raises fundamental questions about the balance between promoting indigenous languages and respecting the practical realities of India’s multilingual, multi-lingual education system. The constitutional status of English—whether it is indigenous or foreign—could become a landmark determination, shaping language policy for decades to come.
