Govt. not in favour of treating English as ‘native’ language

Why in the News

The Union government has told the Supreme Court that it “has an issue” with treating English as an indigenous language. It has assured the court that it will move quickly on consultations to grant the current Class 6 batch a one-time reprieve from the mandatory third-language paper in the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) Class 10 examination. The court had earlier asked the CBSE to consider that relief. The petitioners want English moved out of the indigenous category into the “non-native” or foreign language category, and the Centre has reserved its submissions on that question. The court has also issued notice on petitions filed by minority schools on the three-language scheme. The dispute is about classification rather than count, because what counts as an indigenous language decides how many Indian languages a student must carry.

What is the three-language formula under the National Education Policy, 2020?

1. What it requires: The National Education Policy, 2020 continues the three-language formula in school education. At least two of the three languages taught must be native to India.
2. Why classification decides the burden: A language treated as indigenous can fill one of the two mandatory Indian-language slots. English placed outside that category cannot, so a student carries an additional Indian language alongside it.
3. Choice rests with States and students: The policy states that no language will be imposed on any State. The three languages are chosen by States, regions and students themselves.

What has the Centre now told the Supreme Court?

1. The petitioners’ ask: Counsel for the petitioners sought an order shifting English into the “non-native” or foreign language category.
2. The Centre’s objection: The Centre said it “has an issue” with that, and asked to make its submissions before any order is passed.
3. The assurance on the reprieve: The Centre told a Bench headed by the Chief Justice of India that a meeting with the officials concerned would be arranged within a day or two to decide on the one-time reprieve for Class 6 students.

Why does the current Class 6 batch sit at the centre of the case?

1. One batch faces full implementation: Under the CBSE guidelines, students in Classes 7 to 9 were exempted from the third-language requirement. The current Class 6 batch was slated for full implementation of the scheme.
2. The examination date: Full implementation carries a mandatory Class 10 Board examination in the third language by 2031.
3. The court’s earlier direction: At an earlier hearing the court asked the CBSE to consider relieving Class 6 students of writing the third-language examination in Class 10.
4. The Bench on sequencing: A judge on the Bench said time is needed for students and for infrastructure to reach parity across education boards. Starting with the mother tongue, then an indigenous language, then another indigenous or foreign language works only where it begins in a lower class.

What else is now before the court?

1. The minority schools’ challenge: The court issued notice to the government on petitions filed by minority schools on the implementation of the three-language scheme.
2. The English question is undecided: No order was passed on shifting English out of the indigenous category, because the Centre asked to be heard on it first.
3. Timeline pressure from the petitioners: Counsel for the petitioners said parents were anxious and urged the court against further adjournments. The hearing stands adjourned to 17 September.

Challenges to the three-language formula

1. Political resistance where the formula reads as imposition: A centrally set language requirement collides with State language policy. Eg. Tamil Nadu has followed a two-language policy of Tamil and English since 1968, after the anti-Hindi agitations of 1965, and has refused the three-language formula since.
   The Fix: Make the third language a State-notified choice, and tie central funding to teacher recruitment for whichever language a State selects rather than to adoption of the formula itself.
2. Teacher availability limits real choice: A school cannot offer a language for which no trained teacher is posted. Eg. UDISE+ returns record over one lakh single-teacher schools in the country.
   The Fix: Sanction language-specific posts and permit a shared language teacher across a cluster of schools before the subject becomes examinable.
3. Foundational reading is the prior constraint: A third language added at the middle stage assumes reading fluency that many students do not have. Eg. The ASER 2024 survey found under half of Class 5 students in rural India able to read a Class 2 level text.
   The Fix: Sequence the third language behind a measured foundational literacy benchmark in the mother tongue, rather than behind a fixed grade.
4. Minority institutions’ autonomy is engaged: Article 30(1) gives minorities the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice, and a prescribed set of languages touches that right. Eg. In T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka (2002), an eleven-judge Constitution Bench held that regulation of such institutions is permissible for standards and not for control of administration.
   The Fix: Frame the language requirement as an attainment standard rather than as a prescribed language set, so minority institutions retain the choice of which languages meet it.

Conclusion

The case turns on a classification question rather than on the number of languages taught. Whether English is treated as indigenous decides whether a student carries two Indian languages or three. The Centre has reserved its position on that and has offered relief only to one batch of students. What remains unresolved is what happens to every batch that follows it.

Matching Previous Year Question

“[2020, GS2, 15.0 marks] 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.”