The Supreme Court has directed the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) to provide the current Class 6 batch with the same relief from the mandatory three-language requirement that has already been granted to Class 7 students.

Why the matter reached the Supreme Court

Parents and schools approached the Supreme Court after changes to the language requirements created difficulties for students who had already been studying particular languages for several years.

One of the main concerns raised during the proceedings was the availability of textbooks. The petitioners argued that students affected by the change did not have physical copies of the required books, making it harder for them to adjust to the revised arrangement.

The parents also highlighted cases where students had been studying a particular language since Class 4 and were subsequently required to move to another language under the revised framework.

Centre's position

The Centre opposed extending the exemption to Class 6 students for the current academic year.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta informed the court that the third-language framework had already been adopted by almost all CBSE schools. According to the Centre's submissions, approximately 99 percent of schools had the necessary arrangements, while around 1.2 percent were facing difficulties with implementation.

The government maintained that Class 6 students should follow the language requirement during the current academic year.

Supreme Court extends relief

The Supreme Court nevertheless directed that students who are currently studying in Class 6 should receive the same exemption that has already been provided to Class 7 students.

The bench also indicated that the broader questions surrounding the mandatory language framework would be examined separately.

As a result, the current Class 6 batch will not have to immediately follow the revised requirement. The policy will instead apply to these students from April 1, 2027.

Concerns over changing languages midway

During the hearing, the judges considered the difficulties that could arise when students are required to change languages after following a particular academic programme for several years.

The court discussed whether senior government officials could interact with the schools that had approached the court in order to understand the practical difficulties created by the change.

Representing the parents, senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan argued that forming another committee would not address the immediate concerns and sought a decision on the language requirement.

He referred to the situation at Delhi Public School, where several students had reportedly been studying Spanish from Class 4. According to submissions made before the court, students who had been learning Spanish were later required to shift to Sanskrit.

The petitioners clarified that their concern was not about choosing one language over another. Their primary objection was to requiring students to change languages after years of study.

Textbook availability questioned

The availability of study material was another issue discussed during the proceedings.

The Centre maintained that the necessary textbooks were available. The parents' lawyers, however, argued that although digital versions could be accessed online, physical copies had not been made available to students at the relevant time.

According to the petitioners, the lack of physical books added to the difficulties faced by students who were already being asked to adapt to a changed language curriculum.

Court focuses on avoiding additional difficulty

The bench also considered whether the change in the language framework could place an unnecessary academic burden on Class 6 students.

The discussion focused on ensuring that children are not subjected to avoidable disruption while the larger legal questions surrounding the policy remain pending.

The court ultimately decided that the current Class 6 students should receive the same temporary relief already available to Class 7 students. The broader questions concerning the implementation of the mandatory language requirement will be considered separately.

What happens next?