Don't Introduce Third Language In Class 9, It's Stressful To Students: Justice BV Nagarathna To Centre
Justice Nagarathna opined that if a third language has to be taught, it has to be introduced in Class 6.
Supreme Court judge Justice BV Nagarathna on Thursday expressed concern over the introduction of a third language at the Class 9 level under the CBSE curriculum, observing that it places unnecessary stress on students preparing for board examinations.
The remarks were made during the hearing of the Tamil Nadu government's appeal against a Madras High Court direction to facilitate the establishment of Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalayas (JNVs) in every district of the State. Tamil Nadu has consistently opposed the setting up of JNVs, citing concerns over the three-language policy followed by the schools.
Although the validity of the CBSE language policy was not directly in issue in the case, Justice Nagarathna made a series of observations on the timing of introducing a third language. Notably, the CBSE three-language policy is presently under challenge in separate public interest petitions before a Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant. The CJI's bench has refused to stay the implementation of the CBSE's policy, and has posted the matter for hearing next week.
During the hearing, counsel for Tamil Nadu submitted that the State's objection related to the three-language policy.
Justice Nagarathna observed that the policy did not mandate Hindi as the third language.
"The State language has to be taught, English has to be taught and any third language. It doesn't say Hindi," she remarked.
Adv G Priyadarshini, the counsel for the respondent (the NGO petitioner in High Court), pointed out that the National Education Policy specifically provides that no language should be imposed on any State. Justice Nagarathna then asked the State, "You don't want Hindi, but if it's Sanskrit, what is the issue?". Counsel for the State responded that the third language becomes compulsory only from Class 9.
Reacting to this, Justice Nagarathna said:
"No, that is very bad. Ninth standard is stressful. Why do you introduce a new language in 9th? You introduce it in 6th."
Drawing from her own schooling, the judge recalled that students in her school were exposed to multiple curricula and began learning the third language during middle school.
"In the middle school the third language was started because that was required for SSLC. It was Kannada for those who had second language as Hindi and vice versa. Sanskrit was also there, so you could have third language. The earlier, the better," she observed.
Addressing the Union government, Justice Nagarathna said:
"Union of India, please don't have third language in 9th standard. CBSE, ICSE, State Board, 10th standard is a board exam. From the end of 8th standard onwards, the pressure starts."
Recalling her own academic experience from the 1970s, she added that students were introduced to Class 10 concepts as early as Class 8 to prepare them for board examinations.
"So if we had that kind of preparation and all, what about today's students? Don't start a new language in 9th. Start it in 6th... I'm recalling my experience from 1976," she said.
The judge also advised the Tamil Nadu government against rejecting Central schemes merely because they originate from the Union government.
"You may have your education system, but don't prevent the Central government schools," she told the State, later adding, "Don't have this attitude that it is the Union government, so why should we accept it."
The Bench, also comprising Justice R Mahadevan, noted that discussions between the Union and the State were still underway regarding the establishment of Navodaya schools.
"Talks have not concluded. If that fails, then only a question of us addressing any merits arises," the Bench observed.
The respondent pointed out that despite an earlier direction requiring the State to identify land for the schools within six weeks, Tamil Nadu was now seeking further time. The State sought six weeks to obtain instructions.
Observing that there had been "a change of guard" at the State (TVK came into power after replacing DMK in May following the Assembly elections), Justice Nagarathna remarked that it remained to be seen what policy approach the new government would adopt.
The matter has been posted for further hearing on August 11.
Background
The matter concerns the Tamil Nadu Government's challenge to a Madras High Court judgment directing the establishment of a Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya (JNV) in every district of the State. The High Court had held that the State's refusal to permit JNVs curtailed students' right to choose educational institutions and was inconsistent with the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act. It also directed the State to provide temporary accommodation for 240 students in each district.
The Supreme Court stayed the High Court's directions in December 2017 in the State's appeal.
On December 15, 2025, the Supreme Court directed the Union Government and the Tamil Nadu Government to hold consultations on the establishment of Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalayas in the State, identify the land required for setting up schools in each district, and place the outcome of the discussions before the Court, describing the exercise as an exploratory federal dialogue.
Pursuant to those directions, a consultation meeting was held on January 5, 2026.
In its affidavit before the Supreme Court, the Union Government stated that the National Policy on Education, 1986 envisaged the establishment of Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalayas to provide quality residential education to talented rural students. It said 689 JNVs have been sanctioned in 666 districts across the country, but none has been established in Tamil Nadu because the State has not accepted the scheme.
The Centre clarified that in non-Hindi speaking States, the medium of instruction from Classes VI to VIII is the regional language or English, while from Classes IX to XII, science, mathematics, social sciences and humanities are taught in English. It also stated that establishing a JNV requires the State Government to accept the scheme and provide around 30 acres of land free of cost along with temporary accommodation and basic infrastructure. The Union Government said it remained willing to establish JNVs in Tamil Nadu if the State accepted the proposal and fulfilled the prescribed conditions.
Tamil Nadu, however, told the Court that the JNV scheme is incompatible with its statutory two-language policy. It relied on the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly's 1968 resolution and the Tamil Nadu Tamil Learning Act, 2006, which mandate Tamil and English as compulsory languages and permit a third language only as an optional subject. According to the State, the three-language framework forms an integral part of the JNV scheme, and implementing it in Tamil Nadu would require deviation from the State's statutory framework.
The State further submitted that the objectives of the JNV scheme are already being achieved through its own educational infrastructure. It informed the Court that it has established 38 Model Residential Schools, one in each district, with a capital expenditure of about ₹50 crore per school and annual operating expenditure of around ₹210 crore borne entirely by the State. It stated that during the academic year 2024-25, 1,340 students from these schools secured admission to premier institutions, while several others received fully funded international scholarships.
Tamil Nadu suggested that instead of establishing new JNVs, the Union Government should provide financial support to the State's existing Model Residential Schools or modify the policy framework of the JNV scheme to align with the constitutional, statutory and policy framework prevailing in the State.
The State also informed the Court that it had raised the issue of the non-release of funds under the Samagra Shiksha scheme during the consultation meeting, stating that out of the approved Central share of ₹3,998.82 crore for the financial years 2024-25 and 2025-26, only ₹450.60 crore had been released, leaving ₹3,548.22 crore pending. According to the State, the delay has affected the implementation of educational programmes and the functioning of the school education system.
The respondent organisation, Kumari Maha Sabha, is represented by AoR Rahul Shyam Bhandari and Adv G Priyadarshini.
Case: SLP(C) No. 33459/2017, State of Tamil Nadu v. Kumari Maha Sabha