The Supreme Court on Wednesday sought a “comprehensive response” from the Union government, the Central Board of Secondary Education and the National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT) on a public interest litigation challenging the introduction of a compulsory third language for class 9 students from the 2026–27 academic session.

A Bench comprising Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi issued notice on the petition and posted the matter for hearing in the second week of July after the summer recess.

The Court also asked the Centre, through additional solicitor general Aishwarya Bhati, to place on record details of logistical preparedness for implementing the new language requirement. Petitioners urged a stay on enforcement, but the Court declined interim relief.

Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the petitioners, argued that schools were unprepared and even textbooks were not available, while senior advocate Kapil Sibal said the issue raised serious constitutional concerns, calling language a matter of choice and federal policy.

The plea, filed by 19 parents and teachers from Delhi, Gurugram, Noida and Chennai, challenges the CBSE circular mandating three languages with at least two Indian languages, contending it contradicts earlier assurances and the phased implementation timeline.

The plea further argues that the circular is inconsistent with the National Education Policy 2020, which emphasises flexibility and states that no language should be imposed on any State or student. Petitioners have also relied on the National Curriculum Framework for School Education 2023 and previous CBSE notifications to claim that the revised mandate violates the phased implementation approach earlier communicated by the Board.

In Tamil Nadu, K. Annamalai on May 27 said the controversy was being politically overstated, arguing that the NEP does not force any single language and instead allows flexibility for students and states. He added that opposition parties were misrepresenting the policy for political reasons and urged a clearer understanding of its provisions.

Also read: CBSE three-language policy challenged in Supreme Court