Is English a non-indigenous language? Supreme Court asks in challenge to CBSE’s 3-language policy

The Supreme Court on Thursday questioned the classification of the English language as a non-indigenous language under the Central Board of Secondary Education's (CBSE) revised 3-language policy.

A Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana noted that the status of English in India may require constitutional examination given its historical roots and use as an official language by several States.

The Court observed that the issue would require wider examination.

"We have to examine the issue as to 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'," said Justice Bagchi.

The observation came after counsel for the petitioners argued that English could not simply be treated on par with foreign languages, given its longstanding use in India.

Justice Bagchi also said that the historical roots and widespread use of English in India would have to be considered while examining its constitutional status as an indigenous or non-indigenous language. He observed that the classification raised a deeper constitutional question.

"The other point is the expression 'native language'. That raises a deeper question: whether we consider English a native language or a foreign language. That perhaps requires a constitutional analysis, having regard to our historical experience and the fact that States have English as an official language," stated Justice Bagchi.

The Court's observations came during a broader examination of concerns raised by students and parents over the implementation of the CBSE’s revised 3-language scheme.

The Bench was hearing challenges to the CBSE’s decision to make 3 languages compulsory for students from the 2026-27 academic year, with at least 2 of the 3 required to be Indian languages.

The petitioners contended that students were being forced to abandon languages they had studied for years. Senior Advocate Anand Grover argued that students who had studied languages such as French for years could now be forced to abandon them and begin learning another Indian language from the basics.

The petitioners also objected to the timing of the implementation of the new policy. They pointed out that the academic session had begun before the CBSE issued its April 9 circular requiring the third language at Class 9 level.

Taking note of these submissions, CJI Kant questioned the objection to learning Indian languages.

"Is it not in national integrity that Indian languages are taught? Of course languages knowledge is important...Is it not going to be good for the nation if North Indian student learns South Indian languages?" he asked.

Responding to this, the petitioners clarified that they did not oppose the policy itself but its implementation midway through students’ schooling. They submitted that the policy would be welcomed if it were introduced prospectively, rather than forcing Class 9 students to abandon languages they had already studied.

The petitioners further argued that the policy had a retrospective effect because students had already selected their languages in earlier classes. Counsel pointed out that under the revised structure, R1 would be the regional language, R2 could include English, while R3 would have to be a language other than R1 and R2. This, the counsel argued, effectively pushed English into a different category and prevented students from retaining foreign languages they had already been studying.

The Court appeared took note of this concern about students who had already committed to particular languages. Justice Bagchi suggested that students already in Class 6 could be given a reprieve, allowing the revised system to be introduced for the next batch so that students could make an informed choice.

He subsequently asked Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Aishwarya Bhati to consider whether the same benefit already available to certain transitional classes could be extended to Class 6 students.

Additionally, CJI Kant said that the policy itself need not necessarily be abandoned, but its implementation could be modified.

"We should respect all languages as much as any other language. Today, a scheme, policy or a new concept is being introduced. It is natural that there will be some apprehension, some fear, visualising unforeseen difficulties. Those difficulties, in due course, can be addressed," he said.

He asked the Centre to reconsider its implementation in light of these difficulties.

"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," said CJI Kant.

The petitioners also raised concerns over the availability of teachers and learning material. Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan argued that the students were being asked to learn new languages despite a lack of textbooks, teachers and classes in some schools.

It was also argued that the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 had provided sufficient time to prepare the necessary infrastructure and train teachers.

Justice Bagchi asked the Centre for a roadmap on teacher availability and learning resources for the 23-odd language options under the CBSE scheme. He noted that some languages lacked adequate qualified teachers.

ASG Bhati, however, disputed the claims of inadequate preparation. She submitted that 99.19% of CBSE schools already complied with the requirement of offering 2 Indian languages, while around 234 schools needed to upgrade their infrastructure. She argued that a flexible staffing arrangement had also been permitted during the transition.

Bhati said that students in Classes 7-9 would initially be taught the new languages at a foundational level. She also maintained that the 3-language system was not a sudden introduction, pointing to its earlier existence in Classes 6 to 8.

Additionally, the petitioners questioned how students would be assessed, particularly given the possibility of consequences in Class 10.

ASG Bhati clarified that the assessment would be internal, with students being marked only “qualified” or “not qualified”. Class 9 students would not be held back even if they did not qualify and would get further opportunities to qualify, she clarified.

The petitioners nevertheless argued that students were being subjected to examinations in languages they had barely begun learning.

The Court, however, did not immediately halt the assessments, noting that they were internal.

Justice Bagchi ultimately asked the Centre to reconsider three issues. They are:

• Giving existing Class 6 students a reprieve;

• Ensuring adequate teacher and learning infrastructure;

• Determining the appropriate starting point for the 3-language requirement.

CJI Kant also suggested online classes where only basic language instruction was required and teachers were unavailable.

"If it is only the basics of the language which are to be taught, perhaps you can consider introducing some system of online classes, particularly when there is no examination as such," he suggested.

Additionally, the Court asked the CBSE to provide details on how many schools had the capacity to teach the languages offered under the scheme.

The matter will be heard after 10 days.

[Read Live Coverage]