English indigenous or foreign language? Supreme Court for examining constitution

Why in the News

The Supreme Court on 20 August 2026 said the constitutionality of treating English as a non indigenous language under the three language policy will have to be examined, given the extent of its roots in Indian society. That classification decides which languages compete for a student’s single foreign language slot, so a descriptive label is operating as a rationing rule.

What is the Three-Language Formula?

1. What it requires: The three language formula requires a school student to learn three languages, of which at least two must be native Indian languages, described in the policy as Bhartiya Bhashas.
2. Source and timing: The Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) is introducing it under the National Education Policy, 2020 from the academic year 2026-27.
3. Sequence prescribed: The policy begins a child with the mother tongue, moves to another indigenous language, and leaves the third open to being either indigenous or foreign.

What is the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE)?

1. National Council for Teacher Education: The National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) is the statutory body that lays down norms for teacher education programmes and recognises the institutions running them. Its rules decide whether a school’s language teacher holds the Bachelor of Education qualification that recognition requires.

Why is the classification of English as non-indigenous a constitutional question?

1. The label under scrutiny: The bench said it will have to see whether English can be classified as a non indigenous language or an indigenous one, given the historical perspective of English and the extent of its roots into Indian society.
2. Objection to the word native: A judge on the bench recorded a serious reservation about the expression native, holding that it carries a very colonial import and that indigenous is the correct term.
3. Source of the expression: The Additional Solicitor General told the Court that non native is an expression coming from the new education policy, and the bench replied that the framers of the policy ought to have been conscious of the words they chose.
4. The Board’s position: English is an official language under the Constitution and that status cannot be taken away, it is not treated like a foreign language, and it cannot be treated like a native language either.
5. The presiding judge’s view: The Chief Justice of India said English could hardly be considered a foreign language.
6. Why the label is reviewable: A classification that determines which language a student may take up is State action affecting a class of students, which brings it within constitutional review rather than leaving it to policy discretion alone.

How does the classification restrict the study of other foreign languages?

1. Two slots pre committed: Mandating at least two native Indian languages leaves a student only one slot for a foreign language.
2. English absorbs that slot: Nearly all students choose English for the single slot, so French, Japanese and Spanish are effectively pushed out of the main curriculum.
3. Enrolled students displaced: A large number of students already studying French and Japanese have to switch to a native language.
4. Employment argument: Counsel for the petitioners argued that a second foreign language increases employment opportunities, and that the students affected come from middle and lower income homes.
5. Textbook design problem: Textbooks placed online under the scheme begin with compound sentences rather than with the first letter, which makes learning an unfamiliar script from them impractical.

Why is the Class 6 batch at the centre of the dispute?

1. Cohort singled out: Classes 7 to 9 were exempted under Board guidelines, and the present Class 6 batch was slated to face full implementation.
2. Terminal assessment: That batch faces a mandatory third language paper in the Class 10 Board examination by 2031.
3. Reprieve proposed: The bench asked why the Class 6 students could not be given a reprieve from writing the third language paper in the Class 10 examination.
4. Infrastructure not in place: The Court tied the reprieve to the fact that school infrastructure is still not adequately in place across the various education Boards.
5. Start earlier instead: The bench held that the scheme should begin in a lower class, which would give students, families and school administrations elbow space to adapt.

What capacity gaps does the Court identify in implementation?

1. Choice on paper only: The option is 23 languages in theory, and in practice the range a school can actually offer is far narrower.
2. Board asymmetry: Only around 4 per cent of schools are under the Central Board of Secondary Education and 96 per cent are under State Boards, so a Board level rule reaches a small share of the school system.
3. Teacher education compliance: There are asymmetries in compliance with National Council for Teacher Education rules across schools and Boards.
4. Qualified teacher shortage: There are inadequate numbers of Bachelor of Education qualified teachers for the languages the scheme would add.
5. Sanskrit as the illustration: The bench asked how many Sanskrit teachers hold a Bachelor of Education qualification, noting that deep subject learning does not substitute for the prescribed teaching qualification.
6. Compliance regime required: Schools will need an administrative compliance regime for the additional language, which they can absorb only if the change is phased in.

What has the Court asked the Board to return with?

1. One time reprieve: Whether a one time reprieve can be given to the current batch of Class 6 students from the third language Board examination.
2. Human resources: How human resources are to be built to meet the demands of the three language scheme.
3. Starting class: Whether the scheme should ideally be started in earlier classes rather than at Class 6.
4. Response undertaken: The Additional Solicitor General said she would place these questions before the experts and appraise the Court.

Does a mother tongue first policy expand or narrow a student’s choices?

1. Cognitive case accepted: Early instruction in the mother tongue improves comprehension and retention, which the bench acknowledged as a good policy foundation.
2. The count is not the constraint: The dispute is not over learning three languages but over the rule that two of them must be indigenous, which fixes the composition rather than the number.
3. Choice shrinks at the top: Fixing two slots turns the third into the only site of choice, so every additional foreign language competes against English instead of sitting alongside it.
4. Distributional effect: Students from middle and lower income homes depend on institutional provision for a second foreign language, and better resourced students can purchase it outside the school.
5. Supply decides the outcome: A student in a school with two language teachers has a choice of two, whatever the 23 language menu states, so teacher supply and not the rule is the binding constraint.

Challenges to implementing the Three-Language Formula

1. Teacher cadre does not exist: A third language cannot be staffed from an establishment that was never recruited for it. Eg. Tamil Nadu has not maintained a Hindi teaching cadre in its government schools, so the posts a third language would require have no incumbents to draw on.
2. State resistance on federal grounds: School education sits on the Concurrent List and States have rejected the formula as imposition. Eg. Tamil Nadu has followed a two language policy since 1968 and has declined central school scheme agreements that carry the three language requirement.
3. Persistent non implementation: The formula has been official policy for six decades without uniform adoption. Eg. It was recommended by the Kothari Commission and adopted in the National Policy on Education, 1968, and no decade since has seen it implemented across all States.
4. Migration breaks continuity: A child who moves between States loses the second indigenous language on transfer. Eg. A student learning Marathi in Maharashtra who relocates to West Bengal has to restart a new regional language at the same class level.
5. Assessment weight against learning time: A Board paper in a language begun at Class 6 carries the same weight as papers in subjects taught from Class 1. Eg. The current Class 6 batch faces a third language paper in the 2031 Class 10 examination after five years of instruction.
6. Material for less taught languages: Beginner grade teaching material is thin for classical and less taught languages. Eg. Textbooks placed online under the scheme open with compound sentences, which suits a scholarly reader rather than a Class 6 beginner.
7. Private school offer disrupted: Schools that market a second foreign language lose that offer when the slot is taken. Eg. Private schools offering French, German and Japanese from Class 6 draw fee paying enrolment on that basis.

Conclusion

The dispute has moved from how many languages a school child must learn to who decides that English is not one of India’s own. The Court has said the constitutionality of classifying English as non indigenous will have to be examined, and has asked the Board to return on a one time reprieve for the Class 6 batch, on building teacher capacity, and on shifting the scheme to earlier classes. The Board has undertaken to place these questions before its experts, so the policy stands notified for 2026-27 with its core classification still under judicial scrutiny.

“[2020, GS2, 15] National Education Policy 2020 is in conformity with the Sustainable Development Goal-4 (2030). It intends to restructure and reorient education system in India. Critically examine the statement.”