SC flags lack of books, teachers in challenge to CBSE three-language policy

THe sublime margaret court on wed questioned the unification authorities, the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) and the National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT) on whether adequate teachers, textbooks and logistical infrastructure exist for implementing the new three-language policy, as it agreed to examine a batch of petitions challenging the policy.A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, and justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi issued notices to the Centre, CBSE and NCERT, seeking their replies to the challenge against the policy introduced through CBSE Circular dated May 15, 2026.The court indicated that beyond the constitutional questions raised, it was concerned about the practical feasibility of enforcing the policy from the coming academic session.“Do the schools have enough books…teachers?” the bench repeatedly asked during the hearing, while observing that there appeared to be “issues of hardship, inconvenience and logistical support” requiring immediate attention.The matter will now be heard in the second week of July after the court directed the respondents to file their replies within four weeks.Also Read: SC sets aside MHA order rejecting IPS officer’s VRS over CAA protestsAddressing additional solicitor general Aishwarya Bhati, the bench said it wanted a detailed report on the logistical preparedness for implementation of the policy. “It is an issue of being unreasonable when teachers are not there in schools… books are not there,” the bench observed.Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the petitioners, argued that the circular effectively compels students across the country to comply with the revised framework from July 1 itself, despite schools lacking the infrastructure to support the transition.“All India the mandate is… suppose in Chennai someone studies Tamil, English and French. Now they have to study Telugu etc,” submitted Rohatgi, adding that even textbooks for the revised structure were unavailable.The bench acknowledged the concern, remarking: “If the teachers and books are not there then…”Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing in a connected matter, submitted that the case raised significant constitutional concerns involving federalism and individual autonomy. “Language is a matter of choice and cannot be imposed,” Sibal argued.The bench, however, clarified that at the present stage it was more immediately concerned with the implementation difficulties than with adjudicating the federalism challenge. “We are not on the federal issue… this is increasing the number of regional languages. There are issues of teachers, books etc,” the court observed.Bhati, appearing for the Centre, submitted that the policy was framed keeping “the comfort of the student” in mind and requested that the matter be taken up in July instead of June. “Nothing is happening in July,” she said, opposing an earlier hearing date sought by the petitioners.Rohatgi, however, maintained that implementation would begin from July 1 and students could face academic consequences. “You need not give exam but the final certificate will reflect, you won’t get a certificate until you pass it,” he submitted, urging the court that authorities “should hold their horses” until the challenge is decided.The bench eventually scheduled the matter for hearing after the court’s reopening in July, while directing that soft copies of the petitions be supplied to Bhati and solicitor general Tushar Mehta by Thursday.The lead petition under Article 32 has been filed by a group of 19 petitioners, comprising parents and teachers from Delhi, Gurugram, Noida and Chennai, through advocate Shraddha Deshmukh.The petition challenges the May 15 CBSE circular mandating that from July 1, 2026, Class IX students must study three languages, designated as R1, R2 and R3, with at least two being native Indian languages. Under the policy, students wishing to continue studying foreign languages such as French or German may do so only as a third language if the first two are Indian languages, or alternatively as an additional fourth language.The CBSE’s revised curriculum framework operationalises recommendations made under the National Curriculum Framework for School Education, 2023, and aligns with the National Education Policy, 2020. Under the revised model, students are required to study three languages from Class VI to Class X, with two of them being Indian languages.According to the petitioners, the circular marks a sudden reversal of CBSE’s earlier position communicated on April 9, 2026, when the board had clarified that the compulsory third language requirement for Class IX students would not apply until the 2029-30 academic session.The plea argues that schools, students and parents planned the academic year relying on that assurance and that the abrupt policy shift weeks before implementation has triggered widespread confusion and disruption.The petition further alleges violation of Article 14 on grounds of manifest arbitrariness, pointing out that the circular itself acknowledges shortages of trained teachers and dedicated textbooks. It notes that interim arrangements under the policy permit schools to use teachers from other subjects possessing merely “functional proficiency” in a language and to rely on Class VI textbooks supplemented with local material for Class IX students.The plea also invokes Article 21A, contending that meaningful education cannot be reduced to imposing compulsory subjects without adequate infrastructure, trained faculty or proper pedagogical support. It argues that forcing students who have studied foreign languages for years to abruptly switch courses undermines educational continuity and imposes avoidable academic stress.Additionally, the petition alleges violation of Article 19(1)(g), claiming that foreign language teachers and institutions offering internationally recognised language instruction could be adversely affected by the effective displacement of foreign languages from the mainstream three-language structure.The petitioners further rely on the National Education Policy 2020 and the National Curriculum Framework for School Education, 2023, to argue that the policy contradicts the stated principle that no language shall be imposed on any student or state.