The Supreme Court on Tuesday (July 14) declined to stay the three-language policy of the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) introduced from the current 2026-27 academic year, and deferred the hearing of the petitions challenging the Board's decision to next week.

The petitioners submitted before a bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana that as per the new policy, the students have to study two Indian languages from Class 9. This would mean that they would have to drop the languages which they have been continuously studying since Class 5. The petitioners also flagged that English is treated as a non-native language as per the policy and raised concerns about the availability of teachers and textbooks for native languages.

The Court issued notice on the fresh petitions and fixed the matter for detailed hearing next Wednesday. No interim stay on the operation of the circulars was granted at this stage. In May, the Court had issued notice to the Union, NCERT and the CBSE on an earlier batch of petitons.

Appearing for one of the petitioners, Senior Advocate Anand Grover argued that the circulars lacked statutory backing. He submitted that only the NCERT had the authority to frame such academic requirements and not the CBSE.

"The circulars are without authority of law. Only NCERT has authority, not CBSE. They are imposing languages without giving options. No teachers, no books are available if I want to learn Punjabi instead of Sanskrit. As a child, I must have the opportunity to learn a language which will give me employment," Grover contended.

Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, appearing in another batch of petitions, submitted that although the CBSE had diluted some requirements for senior classes through a subsequent circular, significant issues remained unresolved.

He argued that the policy effectively treated English as a "non-native" language while mandating the study of Indian languages. "They have taken a 300-year-old language and treated English as a non-native language," he submitted.

Senior Advocate Shyam Divan submitted that despite the dilution introduced by the June 29, 2026 circular, substantial problems continued to exist. He argued that the National Education Policy had originally envisaged implementation by 2030, but the CBSE had advanced the timeline to the current academic year.

Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi highlighted the practical difficulties faced by students already studying foreign languages.

"A student of Class 9 who is studying French till date is told to take up a third language and give the examination in April. Unless you get a pass in internal assessment, you can't... How can anyone in Class 9 be told to start learning, say, Tamil? Which school in Delhi can provide a teacher who can teach?" Rohatgi submitted.

Seeking interim protection, Gopal Sankaranarayanan submitted that implementation should be stayed as schools had neither textbooks nor teachers in place.

He informed the Court that only three textbooks were available on the NCERT website despite the requirement to facilitate multiple Indian languages.

"We went to the NCERT website a few minutes ago. Only three books, not 22. Children are being told to drop English and other foreign languages and take up native languages. They had said that by July 1 textbooks would be ready. Teachers have to be ready for 22 languages. This is damaging the status quo," he argued.

He also expressed concern that teachers could lose their jobs if schools were compelled to abruptly alter language offerings.

The CJI, however, remarked, "Learning of language never goes waste."

When Sankaranarayanan argued that teachers might be dismissed due to the implementation, the CJI responded, "If dismissed, we can reinstate."

Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, appearing for the Union government, sought two weeks' time to file a response. The Court, however, directed that the reply be filed within ten days.

The bench also heard the counsel appearing for intervenor Fauzia Khan, former Maharashtra minister, represented by Advs Rahul Shyam Bhandari and G Priyadharshini, who submitted that the policy had adversely affected the mental health of children, particularly those from economically weaker sections.

Case : Amandeep Kaur and others v. Union of India W.P.(C) No. 820/2026, Yashica Bhandari Jain and others v. Union of India and others. W.P.(C) No. 694/2026 and connected cases.