Child Has Fundamental Right Under Art 19(1)(a) To Receive Education In Mother Tongue : Supreme Court
In a recent judgment directing the State of Rajasthan to provide Rajasthani as a subject in schools, and also to facilitate its use as a medium of instruction in schools, the Supreme Court observed that Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution encompasses the freedom of a child to receive primary education in a language of their choice.A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta held that...
In a recent judgment directing the State of Rajasthan to provide Rajasthani as a subject in schools, and also to facilitate its use as a medium of instruction in schools, the Supreme Court observed that Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution encompasses the freedom of a child to receive primary education in a language of their choice.
A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta held that the right of a child to receive education in the mother tongue can be traced to Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.
"At a more fundamental level, the right to receive education in one's mother language finds its normative basis in Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, for the guarantee of freedom of speech and expression necessarily encompasses the right to receive information in a form that is both meaningful and comprehensible. The true value of this freedom lies not merely in the ability to communicate, but in the ability to understand, internalize, and process information so as to make informed choices."
The Court further added that education being a primary vehicle for transmission of knowledge must, to the extent practicable, be imparted in a language that the child best understands.
"Instruction in the mother language, or a language of choice, fortifies the learner's conceptual clarity, ensures deeper cognitive engagement, and secures the constitutional promise of meaningful access to knowledge."
While making the above observations, the Court referred to the decision in State of Karnataka v. Associated Management of English Medium Primary & Secondary Schools, where the importance of imparting education at the primary level in a language of the child's choice was underlined. In this case, it was observed that Article 19(1)(a) confers freedom of choice on a child regarding medium of instruction at the primary level. The State cannot impose education in the mother tongue on such child, even on the ground that the same would be beneficial to the child.
Noting that the Central government's policy was clear in this regard, the Court called out the State of Rajasthan for failing to take appropriate steps to ensure instruction is imparted to children in a language of their choice, or atleast in the regional language.
"This Court has categorically held that the medium of instruction at the primary level must subserve the objective of genuine comprehension and has further located this entitlement within the ambit of Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, recognising it as an intrinsic facet of the right to receive information in a form that facilitates understanding. Therefore, the continued inaction and inadequacy on the part of State Government in operationalising this mandate not only undermines statutory and policy directives but also risks infringing fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution."
Ultimately, it directed the State of Rajasthan to take steps for introduction and provision of Rajasthani language as a subject in all government and private schools across the state.
Appearance: Dr Manish Singhvi, Senior Advocate with AoR DK Devesh (for petitioners)
Headnote
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 19(1)(a) – Freedom of Speech and Expression – Right to Education in Mother Tongue/Language of Choice - The guarantee of freedom of speech and expression necessarily encompasses the right to receive information in a form that is both meaningful and comprehensible - The true value of this freedom lies in the ability to understand, internalize, and process information - Education, as a primary vehicle for transmitting knowledge, must be imparted in a language that the child understands best - A child, or a parent/guardian on their behalf, has a fundamental right to freedom of choice regarding the medium of instruction at the primary school stage, and the State cannot artificially restrict this choice. [Paras 42, 43]
Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 - Section 29(2)(f) – Curriculum and Evaluation Procedure – Medium of Instruction in Mother Tongue: Section 29(2)(f) is a key provision aimed at securing the delivery of quality education in a real and substantive sense - It proceeds on the well-established pedagogical premise that instruction imparted in the child's mother tongue or regional language significantly enhances comprehension and learning outcomes - Imparting education in an unfamiliar language impedes understanding, risks impairing foundational development, and engenders a sense of alienation or apprehension, thereby defeating the purpose of elementary education. [Paras 17 - 39]
National Education Policy (NEP), 2020 – Executive Policies vs. Ground Implementation - The NEP, 2020 underscores the primacy of the home, local, or regional language as a medium of instruction, recognizing that young children grasp complex concepts better in their mother tongue - there appears to be a substantial deficit in the actual implementation of these commitments by the State at the ground level - While frameworks and policies continue to be announced, their absence in the lived experience of the child renders the entire exercise hollow - A right that exists only on paper without corresponding administrative will or implementation is no right at all. [Paras 29-35, 40 - 45]
Eighth Schedule Technicality vs. Constitutional Imperative - The State cannot justify its continued inaction or lackadaisical approach on the technical premise that a regional language (such as Rajasthani) is not formally recognized in the Eighth Schedule to the Constitution - The absence of an administrative policy is an executive shortcoming warranting prompt rectification, not a valid ground to defend institutional inertia. [Para 46]
Pedantic Contradiction in Academic Recognition - Where a language is already being taught as an academic subject at the university level across the State, the argument that it lacks institutional or pedagogical acceptance for school education is highly pedantic and untenable - The State is obligated to translate constitutional assurances into concrete action by introducing such regional languages as a subject in schools in a phased and progressive manner. [Relied on State of Karnataka & Anr. v. Associated Management of English Medium Primary & Secondary Schools & Ors., (2014) 9 SCC 485; English Medium Students Parents Assn. v. State of Karnataka & Ors., (1994) 1 SCC 550; Devesh Sharma v. Union of India & Ors., (2023) 18 SCC 339; State of U.P. & Anr. v. Anand Kumar Yadav & Ors., (2018) 13 SCC 560; Para 50, 51]
Case Title: PADAM MEHTA AND ANR. Versus THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS., SLP(C) No. 1425/2025