The Supreme Court has asked the Union Government, CBSE and NCERT to submit a detailed report on how ready they are to roll out the three-language formula in all CBSE schools for Class 9 from July 1, 2026.
Notices were issued while hearing petitions that challenge the sudden policy shift.
On May 27, the Court refused to put an immediate stay on the move but noted that the “hardship and inconvenience” raised by petitioners deserved a closer look.
Arguments are now scheduled for July 15 and 16.
The sequence of events has raised questions about the manner in which the policy is being pushed through CBSE.
On May 15, CBSE circulated a directive requiring every Class 9 student to study three languages from the coming academic session, claiming alignment with NEP 2020 and the National Curriculum Framework for School Education 2023.
The circular said at least two of the three languages must be Indian. A foreign language like French or German could be taken only as the third language if the first two were Indian, or as an optional fourth subject.
To soften the immediate impact, CBSE said the third language would not be part of the Class 10 board exam. It would be assessed through internal school evaluations, though the score would still appear on the final certificate.
This exemption, however, does little to ease the pressure, especially when the decision itself came as a reversal.
Just weeks before the May circular, CBSE had indicated that the third-language requirement would be postponed until the 2029-30 academic year. The abrupt change has led critics to call it a political call rather than an educational one.
Petitioners have moved the Court on several grounds, including constitutional arguments.
Their core claim is that language is a matter of personal choice and cannot be forced by the state. They point out that NEP 2020 itself speaks of flexibility and clearly states that no language will be imposed on any student or state.
The petition also questions CBSE’s authority as an executive body to impose such a wide-ranging academic mandate without backing from an Act of Parliament. NEP 2020, they argue, is a policy vision, not a law.
The practical concerns are equally sharp. Parents and teachers are worried about adding another subject right before board exams, a time when students are already under stress.
School heads have flagged a shortage of trained language teachers and the lack of suitable textbooks for many regional languages.
Without teachers and materials, the mandate risks becoming a paperwork exercise that burdens students without improving learning.
Education should equip young people for a competitive, global future, not turn classrooms into an arena for ideological contests.
If India wants to build a strong pool of skilled, adaptable human resources, school policy must prioritize learning quality, teacher readiness and student well-being over sudden, top-down shifts.
The government still has time to rethink its approach before the Court takes up the matter again.
A course correction now, based on consultation with states, schools and parents, would be more constructive than defending a hurried decision that many on the ground are struggling to implement.
