Supreme Court Directs Rajasthan Govt To Include Rajasthani Language As Subject In All Govt And Private Schools

Underlining the absence of an appropriate policy framework, the Supreme Court today 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.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta delivered the judgment, stating,

"we deem it appropriate to direct the State of Rajasthan to formulate an appropriate and comprehensive policy for the effective implementation of the constitutional mandate relating to the mothertongue-based education, particularly in the backdrop of the National Education Policy, 2020.

The State shall take necessary measures to recognize and accord due status to the Rajasthani language as local/regional language for educational purposes and to progressively facilitate its adoption as a medium of instruction, initially at the foundational and preparatory stages of schooling, and progressively at higher levels, in a manner consistent with the constitutional principles and pedagogical requirements."

The Court noted that Rajasthani was being taught across the State in certain Universities and therefore there was no question about the language's institutional or pedagogical acceptance.

"We may note Rajasthani is presently being taught as a subject in the universities across the State of Rajasthan, yet the procrastinating stand consistently taken by the State is that only those languages included in the 8th Schedule to the Constitution are being taught as additional languages in government primary and upper primary schools. Such a position in our view discloses an apparent pedantic approach for the academic recognition of Rajasthani at the higher education level itself belies all the suggestions that the language lacks institutional or pedagogical acceptance."

Accordingly, it directed the State to take affirmative and timebound steps towards introducing and providing Rajasthani as a subject in all schools - government and private - in a phased and progressive manner consistent with the constitutional and policy framework.

"The directions are necessitated by the palpable vacuum presently operating in the arena of significant constitutional importance", the Court said.

In its judgment, the bench acknowledged the Court's limitations insofar as policy formulation is concerned, but stressed that it cannot remain a "silent spectator" to a "stark dilution of rights" recognized in the Constitution, the statutes and binding precedents.

"This Court cannot remain silent spectator to the stark dilution of the rights so clearly recognized in the Constitutional text, legislative enactments and binding precedents. While it's not the province of this Court to enter upon the arena of policy formulation, it is nonetheless its solemn Constitutional duty to ensure that the guarantees enshrined in Part 3 of the Constitution are not rendered illusory by executive inaction or indifference."

It further added, "Once the Union has itself through legislative measures and policy frameworks acknowledged the necessity of imparting education in a language intelligible to the child, a corresponding obligation arises for the states to take timely, effective and purposive steps towards its realization. A failure to discharge such obligations can't be countenanced, for constitutional rights once recognized, must be translated into tangible outcomes and cannot be permitted to languish as mere abstractions."

The Court also observed that in the absence of any appropriate policy framework, it would be failing in its constitutional duty if it were to remain indifferent to the continued "non-realization of the rights and obligations" clearly envisaged under the Constitution.

The matter is listed for compliance in September.

The Court delivered the judgment in a petition seeking to include Rajasthani as a language to impart education to children in schools. The petitioners also sought directions to include Rajasthani Language in the examination syllabus of Rajasthan Eligibility Examination for Teacher.

The Special Leave Petition was filed against the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court which rejected the petitioners' plea. The High Court held that it cannot issue a writ of mandamus to include Rajasthani as a language for education since it was an educational policy matter.

Although the official language of the State is Hindi as per the Rajasthan Official Language Act of 1956, the petitioners point out that Rajasthani is widely spoken by about 4.36 Crores people as per the 2011 census.

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

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 492

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment