'Imposition Of Hindi In South & Sanskrit In North' : Ex-MP Fauzia Khan Moves Supreme Court Against CBSE's 3-Language Mandate

An intervention application has been filed in the ongoing matter challenging the decision of the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) to make a third language compulsory for Class 9th students from July 1st onwards this year. The intervenor, Dr. Fauzia Khan, an educationist and former Member of Parliament and ex-Maharashtra minister, contends that the circular is unreasonable because, while it may ostensibly appear to promote the preservation of India's linguistic heritage by mandating native languages, it fails to provide the necessary institutional framework for their meaningful study. As a result, she argues, the policy merely imposes a formal compliance burden on students, even as the genuine heritage and scholarly traditions associated with those languages continue to decline.The intervention is filed in the public interest litigation (Yashica Bhandari Jain & Ors v UOI) in which the Supreme Court had earlier sought the response of the Union, the NCERT and the CBSE.As per the circular, the CBSE has mandated three compulsory languages (R1, R2, and R3) for Class 9, of which at least two should be native Indian languages, effective from July 1. Students wishing to study a foreign language may do so as a third language, provided the other two are Indian languages, or as a fourth language.As per the earlier circular, students in Classes 9th and 19th are required to study only two compulsory languages, with the third language remaining optional. Further, on April 9, CBSE issued a notification titled 'Response to Queries on Languages at Class IX-X Session 2026-27,' in which it had expressly deferred making the third language compulsory till the academic session 2029-30.Relying on CBSE's earlier circular, Dr. Fauzia Khan has adopted a position similar to that of the lead petitioner, contending that the May 15 circular is inconsistent with the Board's notification dated April 9. In her intervention application, she argues that CBSE's abrupt change in stance within a span of 36 days is arbitrary and unreasonable, particularly as no reasons were provided to students, parents, or teachers, and the decision was taken without due consultation or affording stakeholders an opportunity to be heard.Dr Fauzia has cited certain consequences for mandating a third language as compulsory. For instance, in Kendriya Vidyalayas and CBSE-affiliated schools in Southern India, qualified teachers for languages classified as R3 are not available."The Impugned Circular acknowledges this teacher shortage in its own text, yet proceeds to mandate compliance. The result is that the only practical purpose served by the Impugned Circular, in the southern States, is the compulsory introduction of Hindi, and in the northern States, the compulsory introduction of Sanskrit, without any stated educational rationale." She has said that compelling non-Hindi States to introduce Hindi or Sanskrit as R3 also violates the National Education Policy 2020. Dr Khan has also questioned the May 15 circular for directing Class 9th students to use Class VI R3 textbooks as the primary pedagogical resource until secondary-stage textbooks are developed, which shows the acute shortage of qualified native Indian language teachers. To add to this, the intervenor has pointed out that its well-established principle that language acquisition is most effective and lasting when introduced at an early stage, preferably from the kindergarten level. "Where the State has failed to implement a language policy at the foundational stage, it cannot cure that failure by retrospectively burdening adolescent students already engaged in their secondary education with the obligation to acquire a new language script, vocabulary, and grammar simultaneously with their preparation for Board Examinations. Such a measure imposes an unreasonable and disproportionate burden upon students that bears no rational nexus to any legitimate educational objective." Additionally, the intervenor has pointed out that Education is a Concurrent subject in List III, but that doesn't empower the Central Government to impose a mandatory language through an administrative circular without consultation with States, and without any proportionate justification. This, she argues, violates the federal principle, which has been held as a basic structure in S.R. Bommai v UOI(1994)."The Impugned Circular strikes at the very values of unity and diversity that are the bedrock of the Indian Republic. The Constitution of India does not envision a linguistically homogeneous nation; it envisions a pluralistic nation in which the richness of regional languages, minority languages, and classical traditions are preserved and celebrated. A circular that, in its practical operation, compels students in Tamil Nadu or Karnataka to study Hindi, and students in Hindi-speaking States to study Sanskrit or other regional language, while denying all students the freedom to pursue the languages of global commerce and diplomacy ...

'Imposition Of Hindi In South & Sanskrit In North' : Ex-MP Fauzia Khan Moves Supreme Court Against CBSE's 3-Language Mandate

Gursimran Kaur Bakshi

The applicant argued that the policy has no educational rationale, and negated federalism and linguistic diversity.

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Gursimran Kaur Bakshi

'Imposition Of Hindi In South & Sanskrit In North' : Ex-MP Fauzia Khan Moves Supreme Court Against CBSE's 3-Language Mandate

Gursimran Kaur Bakshi

The applicant argued that the policy has no educational rationale, and negated federalism and linguistic diversity.

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Gursimran Kaur Bakshi

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers