Supreme Court asked CBSE to consider a one-time reprieve for current Class 6 students from the third-language requirement.
The bench raised concerns over teacher availability, school preparedness and the sudden implementation of the policy.
CBSE defended the rollout, saying transitional students would face only internal assessment and would not be held back.
The Supreme Court on Thursday asked the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) to consider a one-time reprieve for current Class 6 students from the third-language requirement, which would mean they do not face a mandatory board examination in that language in Class 10.
The court also asked the CBSE to protect existing foreign-language combinations during the transition.
As reported by Hindustan Times, a bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana said concerns over the sudden implementation of the policy, school preparedness and availability of qualified teachers warranted reconsideration of the transition for the current Class 6 batch.
Under the CBSE's June 29 guidelines, students entering Class 6 in the 2026-27 academic session are required to study a third language and face a compulsory Class 10 board examination in it. Students have to study three languages, of which at least two must be Indian languages. Transitional relief has already been given to students in Classes 7 to 9.
Concerns Over Implementation
The bench asked Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, appearing for the CBSE, to return with three clarifications. It sought details on whether current Class 6 students could get an additional academic year to prepare, how human-resource infrastructure would be created and whether the third language should start in Class 6 or earlier in Class 3 or 4.
“If the standard is six for you, give them a reprieve for the current sixth standard so that the issue of retrospective operation also gets obviated and their immediate issue gets resolved too,” the bench said.
The court clarified it was not questioning the rollout of the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020, but said its implementation cannot adversely affect students' rights.
“With regard to the NEP, the roll out can be done and it is their discretion. However, that discretion doesn’t have to impact the rights,” the bench remarked, asking the CBSE to “go back to the drawing board” on the immediate application of the policy to Class 6 students.
Senior advocate Anand Grover, appearing for a petitioner, argued that the CBSE lacks statutory authority to frame the curriculum for Classes 6 to 8. He said this domain falls within the National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT).
Grover also emphasized the need for qualified teachers, noting that Indian languages would have to be taught from the basics while Class 6 students are already expected to deal with more complex words and sentences. He added that learning a foreign language could open employment opportunities.
Language Debate
The bench emphasized the importance of learning Indian languages and questioned the reluctance to introduce an additional language. It remarked that it was “something good for the nation that children learn different Indian languages” and asked, “What can be the harm if a person [from] North India chooses to learn a language from South India?”
“Learning any new language is a big asset and invaluable. There is no compulsion for examination, why should there be a reluctance? And there is no embargo for you to continue with the foreign language,” the bench said.
The bench cautioned against treating regional languages as inferior. “Let us not treat with inferiority the regional languages. They all must get due respect,” the bench said, indicating that implementation issues could be examined by an expert committee if necessary.
The bench also raised concerns over the availability of qualified teachers, questioning how many Sanskrit teachers possess B.Ed qualifications. It noted that while many may be well-versed in the language, they lack formal B.Ed degrees.
CBSE Defends Policy
Bhati said the scheme contemplated only internal assessment for the transitional classes and that students would not be held back even if they did not qualify. She said the CBSE had permitted flexible staffing arrangements and that the policy was being rolled out in phases following consultations with thousands of experts.
Bhati also pointed out that the CBSE represents only around 33,000 of India's 7.5 lakh schools, and the overwhelming majority already comply with the requirement of teaching two Indian languages.
The bench requested a specific roadmap from the ASG regarding the adequacy of teachers and other school resources. Upon being mentioned by senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayan, the court flagged a separate issue concerning the classification of English as a “non-native” language.
Bhati said English is an official language but not a native Indian language under the scheme. The bench expressed reservations about the term “native”, calling it potentially colonial in character. The justices suggested that determining whether English could be considered an indigenous language might require a constitutional analysis based on historical facts. “That is a debatable issue but a larger one that can be taken up later,” the bench said.
The court first took up challenges to the policy in May, after parents complained about the lack of textbooks, teachers and infrastructure to teach the 22 scheduled Indian languages.
Following the litigation, the CBSE issued its June 29 circular providing transitional relief to Classes 7, 8 and 9. For the current Class 10 batch, the CBSE confirmed there would be no change and no third language would be required.
The petitioners pointed out that the original policy envisaged a phased rollout beginning with Class 6 in 2026-27 and reaching Class 10 by 2030-31, while the June 29 guidelines mentioned that dedicated Class 6 textbooks in the 22 scheduled Indian languages were being made available through NCERT.
