'How English Can Be Treated As Non-Native?' : Supreme Court Urges CBSE To Revisit Language Policy, Suggests Relaxation For Class 6

The Supreme Court on Thursday flagged certain issues in the 3-language policy of the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) and urged the Union, the NCERT and the Board to revisit the same

The Court orally expressed reservations about the policy to treat English as a "non-native language." The Court also asked if the Class 6 students of the current academic year can also be given a relaxation. Further, the Court raised concerns over the availability of teachers and textbooks for the indigenous languages.

The bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana was dealing with a bunch of petitions challenging CBSE's circulars introducing the 3-language policy. As per these circulars, the new policy is sought to be introduced from the academic year 2026-27.

English a non-native language?

Justice Bagchi questioned the basis of treating English as a non-native language. "We have to examine the extent to which English can be considered a non-indigenous language. First, I personally have serious reservations about the expression "native". It has a very colonial connotation. It should be "indigenous". Secondly, if you see the historical perspective of English and the extent of its roots in Indian society, we will have to take a final call, although it is your policy, on the constitutional angle - whether English is a non-indigenous language or an indigenous language. If you do that, to a large extent these rough edges can be taken care of."

Justice Bagchi said that treating the issue requires a constitutional analysis, having regard to our historical experience and the fact that many States have English as an official language.

On relaxation for Class 6

Justice Bagchi further asked if the relaxation can be extended to Class 6 as well. "The second thing which is really troubling the petitioners is whether students presently in Class 6 can also be given a reprieve from taking the final test in Class 10. The option is 23 languages in theory. But in reality, as you rightly said, only around 4% of schools are under CBSE and 96% are under State Boards. There are asymmetries in compliance with National Council for Teacher Education norms. Now, compounded with that, if suddenly another indigenous language has to be taught, you would have to give some time not only to the students but also for the infrastructure of schools to come on par. If this can be reconsidered by the Council with regard to the applicability to these classes, and it can instead be scaled down to the lower standards, that would give greater assistance to students and their parents in taking a call."

"If the starting point you have chosen is Class 6, consider giving a reprieve to the Class 6 students of this year. You can introduce it from next year....If students who have already committed to a particular language are given a reprieve, I think the immediate concern of the petitioners can be addressed,"Justice Bagchi said.

"We have to ensure that the rollout is appropriately undertaken. Therefore, we are requesting the Additional Solicitor General to go back to the drawing board and come back to us. As regards Class 6 students who have already committed themselves to a language, consider giving them a reprieve. It can be implemented for the next batch of students who will be opting for the three languages, so that theirs is an informed decision," Justice Bagchi added.

Bench questions CBSE on infrastructure

The bench questioned the CBSE regarding the availability of trained teachers to teach the indigenous langauges.

"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 said.

"We have to see how far an informed choice is actually capable of being implemented. We therefore request the ASG to give us a roadmap regarding the availability of teachers and other learning tools for the 23-odd language options offered in CBSE schools," Justice Bagchi further observed.

CJI Surya Kant urged the Board to revisit the issues. "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," CJI Surya Kant said.

Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati agreed to convey the Courts' concerns to the Board and to come back after getting the suggestions. "I can put it to the experts and the policymakers.

From the hearing

Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan argued that students were being asked to abandon languages they had 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.

Sankaranarayanan also highlighted what he described as serious implementation problems, saying that textbooks were unavailable and teachers and classes had not been arranged in several schools. He said the policy could affect around three million children and urged the court to consider the immediate impact on students.

Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, appearing for the Centre, disputed those claims. She told the court that the government had made the necessary arrangements and that officials were present with material to demonstrate its preparedness.

During the hearing, the bench questioned whether promoting the study of Indian languages could be viewed as contrary to the broader national interest. The Chief Justice observed that knowledge of languages was important and asked whether it would be beneficial for a student in North India to learn a South Indian language.

Senior Advocate Anand Grover, however, questioned the feasibility of a student from South suddenly being asked to study Punjabi or a north Indian student asked to learn Tamil. He pointed to textbooks that begin with advanced material such as compound sentences, arguing that students would first have to learn the basic alphabet and foundations of the language.

Another counsel questioned how English, which is a recognised official language of the Union and the Court language, can be treated as a "foreign language". Pointing out that the language formula was envisaged way back in 2020 in the NEP, the petitioners questioned why the CBSE did not take efforts to develop faculty and textbooks in languages over the last six years before the formula is hastily implemented.

Earlier, the Court declined to stay the 3-language policy, with an oral remark that "learning a language never goes to waste". The petitioners contended during the hearing that as per the new policy, students have to study two Indian languages from Class 9 (therefore dropping the languages they had been studying since Class 5). It was also highlighted that English is a non-native language under the new policy. The petitioners also raised concerns about the availability of teachers and textbooks for the "native" languages.

Among other things, the petitions challenge Circular No. Acad-33/2026 dated May 15, 2026. According to the petitioners, the impugned circular mandates that with effect from July 1, 2026, Class IX students must study three languages (R1, R2 and R3), with at least two being native Indian languages. Students wishing to study a foreign language may do so only as a third language, provided the other two are Indian languages, or alternatively as an additional fourth language.

Recently, Justice BV Nagarathna also 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. 

Case : Yashica Bhandari Jain and others v. Union of India and others. W.P.(C) No. 694/2026 (and connected cases)