SC Raises Concerns Over Term 'Native' in CBSE Language Policy

The Supreme Court on Thursday questioned the use of the term “native” in the Central Board of Secondary Education’s three-language policy under the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020. Justice Joymalya Bagchi observed that the word has colonial origins and said “indigenous” would be a more appropriate term. The court also indicated that it would examine whether English can constitutionally be classified as an indigenous or non-indigenous language in India.

The observations came while a bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana heard petitions challenging the CBSE’s three-language mandate. The petitioners have raised concerns about the practical difficulties of implementing the policy, particularly the shortage of qualified teachers, textbooks and other learning resources needed to offer the prescribed languages.

Justice Bagchi questioned the classification of languages under the policy and said the court would have to consider the constitutional implications of describing English as non-indigenous. He also criticised the use of the word “native”, stating that the framers of NEP 2020 should have been more careful about the terminology used while framing the policy.

Also Read: NEET Protests Probe: Supreme Court Sets Up Five-Member Panel

The three-language policy is scheduled to be implemented from the 2026-27 academic session. Under the framework, students from Class 9 onwards will be required to study three languages, with at least two of them being Indian languages. The policy has generated debate over whether schools across the country have sufficient infrastructure and teaching staff to implement the requirement effectively.

During the hearing, the Supreme Court also questioned whether the third language should be introduced from Class 6 as currently proposed or whether its implementation should begin earlier, from Class 3 or 4. The bench sought a clear roadmap from CBSE covering the availability of teachers, course material and other resources before the policy is fully implemented.

Justice Bagchi also raised questions about the availability of suitably qualified teachers for Indian languages, asking how many Sanskrit teachers in schools possess B.Ed. qualifications. The court's concerns highlight the gap that could exist between the policy's objectives and the preparedness of individual schools to meet its requirements.

The Supreme Court's observations do not amount to a final ruling on the constitutional validity of the three-language policy. The bench is examining the concerns raised by petitioners while also seeking clarity from CBSE on how the policy can be implemented without placing an undue burden on students and schools. Further proceedings are expected to determine the next steps for the rollout.

Also Read: Supreme Court Warns Malls, Hotels Could Lose Power, Water Over Waste Rule Violations