The Supreme Court on Thursday, August, 20, 2026, raised important questions over the Central Board of Secondary Education’s (CBSE) revised three-language policy, particularly its treatment of English as a non-indigenous language and the practical difficulties students may face under the new system.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana was hearing petitions challenging the implementation of the policy for the 2026-27 academic session. The Court did not stay the policy but asked the Centre, NCERT and CBSE to reconsider several aspects of its rollout.
Background of the Case
The petitions challenge CBSE's revised language requirements under which Class 9 students are required to study three languages, with at least two being Indian languages. Foreign languages may be taken only in the manner permitted under the revised framework.
The petitioners argued that students who had already studied a particular language for several years could be forced to change their language choices midway through their schooling. They also raised concerns over the availability of qualified teachers, textbooks and other learning material.
CBSE and the Centre, however, maintained that arrangements had been made for implementation and that the policy was intended to strengthen language learning rather than impose an unreasonable burden on students.
Supreme Court Questions Classification of English
Justice Joymalya Bagchi questioned the basis for describing English as a non-indigenous language. He said the issue could not be considered merely from an educational-policy perspective because English has a long history of use in India and is an official language in several States.
“We have to examine the extent to which English can be considered a non-indigenous language. I personally have serious reservations about the expression ‘native’. It has a very colonial connotation. It should be ‘indigenous’.”
Justice Bagchi further indicated that the question could require constitutional examination, particularly considering India's historical experience and the official use of English in different parts of the country.
Court Raises Concern Over Class 6 Students
The Bench also considered whether students already studying in Class 6 should receive a temporary relaxation from the new framework.
Justice Bagchi observed that students who had already committed themselves to a particular language should potentially be given sufficient time before being subjected to the revised requirements.
“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.”
The Court indicated that such an approach could allow the next batch of students to make an informed choice instead of immediately changing the position of students who had already begun their studies.
Teachers and Textbooks Also Come Under Scrutiny
The availability of teachers and learning material emerged as another major concern during the hearing. The Bench asked CBSE to provide details about the number of schools capable of offering the languages included in the scheme.
Justice Bagchi said:
“CBSE must inform us how many of its schools actually have the teaching capacity and learning tools necessary to offer this range of languages.”
The Court also asked the Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati to provide a roadmap concerning teachers and learning resources for the various language options offered under the policy.
The petitioners submitted that some schools lacked adequate teachers, textbooks and classes. The Centre disputed the extent of the problem and maintained that steps had already been taken to facilitate implementation.
CJI Surya Kant Asks Centre to Revisit Implementation
Chief Justice Surya Kant made it clear that the Court's concern was not necessarily with the objective of promoting Indian languages, but with the manner in which the policy was being introduced.
He said:
“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.”
The Bench also stressed the importance of respecting all languages and considered whether basic language instruction could be supported through online classes where qualified teachers were unavailable.
Court’s Decision
The Supreme Court did not suspend the CBSE three-language policy. Instead, it asked the Centre, NCERT and CBSE to reconsider the implementation issues raised during the hearing, including possible relaxation for existing Class 6 students, availability of teachers and learning resources, and the appropriate stage at which the revised requirement should begin.
The Court also sought further information from CBSE regarding the schools equipped to teach the available languages. Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati agreed to place the Court's concerns before the concerned authorities.
The matter was directed to be listed for further hearing after 10 days.
Case Details
Case Title: Yashica Bhandari Jain and Others v. Union of India and Others
Case Number: W.P.(C) No. 694/2026 and connected cases
Judges: Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana
Decision/Hearing Date: August 20, 2026
 Act, 1994 (PCPNDT Act)-300x169.webp)
