Supreme Court Refuses To Stay CBSE Three Language Policy, Next Hearing On July 22

The Supreme Court of India has declined to put a stay on the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) Three Language Policy. During a hearing on Tuesday, a bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V. Mohana heard several petitions challenging the implementation of this policy, while the bench issued an order refusing to grant an interim stay on the circular issued by the CBSE, emphasizing the inherent value of linguistic education. The court has scheduled the next hearing for the matter on July 22 and has issued notices regarding the new petitions filed in this context.

Learning Languages is Never Futile: Supreme Court

While presiding over the case, the bench led by CJI Surya Kant made a significant observation regarding the acquisition of new languages, while the court stated that "learning any language never goes waste," suggesting that the addition of linguistic skills is beneficial for students. This remark came as the court refused to halt the progress of the CBSE circular. The bench's perspective highlights a broader educational philosophy where multilingualism is seen as an asset rather than a burden, despite the legal and administrative challenges raised by the petitioners.

Legal Authority and Academic Requirements

Senior Advocate Anand Grover, representing one of the petitioners, presented a series of arguments against the CBSE circular. He contended that the circular lacked a proper legal foundation. According to Grover, the authority to determine academic requirements and policies lies solely with the National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT), and not with the CBSE, while he argued that the CBSE is overstepping its jurisdiction by mandating such policies without the necessary legal backing. The petitioners expressed concern that the new policy forces students in Class 9 to study two Indian languages, which might compel them to abandon languages they've been consistently studying since Class 5.

Concerns Over Language Imposition and Resources

The legal counsel for the petitioners further alleged that the policy amounts to an imposition of languages without providing adequate choices or resources, while anand Grover pointed out that if a student wishes to learn a language like Punjabi instead of Sanskrit, there is a severe lack of available teachers and textbooks. He emphasized that as a child, a student should have the opportunity to learn languages that could potentially enhance their future employment prospects. The petitioners also raised concerns about the classification of English as a "non-native" language under the new policy, questioning the availability of qualified teachers and quality textbooks for the mandated "native" languages.

The Status of English and Constitutional Goals

Senior Advocate Gopal Shankaranarayanan, appearing for new petitions, noted that there are two distinct sets of cases being heard. He mentioned that while rules have been relaxed for senior classes, the policy seems to have categorized English—a language with a 300 year history in the country—as a non-local or non-native language. Justice Joymalya Bagchi responded to these points by questioning the definition of "native" in this context. He observed that the promotion of the Three Language Policy is aligned with the constitutional goal of adopting and promoting Indian languages. Justice Bagchi remarked that while the nomenclature might require reconsideration, the underlying objective is clear. He posed a rhetorical question regarding whether India could consider English a native Indian language, noting that historically, even Persian served as the official language of the courts at one point.