The Supreme Court on Thursday questioned several aspects of the CBSE’s three-language policy.
The court sought answers on the availability of books and teachers, the burden on students and how the policy would be implemented in different schools.
A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana was hearing petitions challenging the three-language policy introduced by the CBSE for Class 9 students under the NEP 2020.
The petitioners said students would have to study two Indian ‘native’ languages under the policy, while many schools do not have the books, teachers or basic facilities needed for this.
The court was told that even four months after the academic session began, some schools still did not have books for the prescribed languages.
This is affecting millions of students who will have to take exams.
Petitioners raise issue of shortage of books
Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, appearing for the CBSE and the Centre, said officials had the required material.
She offered to show the court screenshots and other material related to the availability of books.
Senior advocate Anand Grover, appearing for the petitioners, asked how students could suddenly be expected to learn a new language without basic study material.
Grover said, “How will I suddenly learn Punjabi, Tamil or compound sentences? We will have to start with the alphabet. Look at the books; they start with compound sentences.”
However, the court said the courses had not yet started, and the authorities would have a plan for implementing them. Justice V Mohana said, “The courses have not started yet. I am sure they will have a plan. There will also be teachers.”
No question of failing Class 9 students
Grover said that if students were required to score passing marks in newly introduced languages, it would increase the pressure on them.
ASG Bhati clarified that the plan would involve only internal assessment. Class 9 students would not be held back for failing to pass the additional languages.
Bhati said, “The plan only involves internal assessment. Class 9 students will not be failed and held back. They will move to Class 10 even if they do not qualify.”
The bench also considered whether students who are already studying foreign languages such as French would have to drop them because of the new requirement.
Grover said students learning French should be allowed to continue with it. He said learning a foreign language could provide students with educational and career opportunities.
He also argued that asking students from one state to learn the language of another state could add to their burden and would not be easy to implement everywhere.
CJI Surya Kant made it clear that the policy did not require students to give up languages they were already studying. He said, “There is no question of excluding languages already being studied. Students can continue with them.”
Discussion on learning languages from other states
The CJI asked whether students should be discouraged from learning languages from other parts of the country.
He said, “Would it not be good for the country if students from North India learn languages from South India and students from South India learn languages from North India?”
The CJI said, “As an educational institution, we should suggest what methods and suggestions can be adopted in this.”
The court said there should not be an environment where regional languages are seen as inferior. The CJI said, “There should be no sense of inferiority towards regional languages. We should respect all languages.”
The bench also discussed a proposal for states to decide their regional language to help preserve local languages.
Advocate G. Priyadarshini, appearing for a petitioner who runs regional schools and is a former Rajya Sabha MP, said students in every state should be required to learn the local language of that state.
Priyadarshini said, “This is how we can preserve our languages.”
The court asked whether this would not amount to forcing students to learn a particular language. The court said, “It would be called forcing. Even forcing someone to learn their mother tongue could cause difficulties for them.”
The CJI also said internal assessment had been left to schools so that students would not face unnecessary pressure.
99.19% of schools already teaching two Indian languages
The court then raised the issue of the availability of teachers and whether schools had enough faculty to implement the policy.
ASG Bhati referred to CBSE data and said 99.19% of schools were already meeting the requirement of teaching two Indian languages. Around 235 schools were not meeting this requirement.
She said the transition would be flexible for students in Classes 7, 8 and 9. The policy would initially be introduced at a basic level to bring greater uniformity.
The ASG said different parts of NEP 2020 were being introduced at different times. The current process was being used to implement the part related to the mother tongue.
She said the five-year period from Classes 5 to 10 would give students enough time to learn languages.
Questions over qualifications of Sanskrit teachers
The court questioned the availability of qualified teachers, particularly for languages such as Sanskrit.
Justice Bagchi asked, “How many Sanskrit teachers in our schools have a B.Ed. qualification?”
He also questioned the broader process of implementing the policy, including applying it to different types of schools and completing the administrative procedures required for them.
Justice Bagchi said the policy could be introduced from a lower class. This would give parents more choice when deciding which languages their children should learn.
Constitutional questions over the word ‘native’ and English
Justice Bagchi also questioned the terminology used in the policy. He asked how English could be described as a non-native language.
He objected to the use of the word ‘native’, saying it had links to the colonial era.
Justice Bagchi said, “To what extent can English be considered a non-native language? I object to the word ‘native’ because it has colonial roots. It should be ‘indigenous’. Those who drafted NEP 2020 should have been careful about using the word ‘native’.”
The court said it would have to consider the constitutional aspect of whether English can be considered an indigenous or non-indigenous language in India.
Justice Bagchi said, “We will have to examine the constitutionality of whether English can be called indigenous or non-indigenous.”
Court says policy should first be implemented and then assessed
The bench also discussed whether problems that emerge after the policy is implemented could be addressed later.
The CJI said the policy could first be allowed to take effect. The difficulties faced by schools and students could then be assessed.
He said, “Let whatever has been implemented be experienced. There will be some difficulties after the experience, and then we will examine them.”
The CJI said an expert committee or specialists from the relevant field could later examine any unforeseen problems. They could recommend changes to the policy.
The court also asked whether students would immediately have to take an examination under the new language requirement.
The CJI said the language was being introduced this year without an examination and students should be given time to become familiar with it.
The CJI asked the CBSE to consider making changes to the policy in view of the concerns raised by the petitioners. He said, “You can reconsider these doubts. How should the policy be organised? You are an expert institution.”
The court indicated that the case involved both constitutional and practical questions.
These include the classification of languages, the availability of teachers and books, the burden on students and how the policy can be implemented in schools with different linguistic circumstances.
