Editorial-05/10/2026
Two or three? On the Court, students, three-language policy
The Supreme Court’s recent interventions on the Central Board of Secondary Education’s (CBSE) three-language policy reflect a deeper tension in Indian education: between the constitutional vision of multilingualism and federal diversity on one hand, and the practical realities of student burden, resource constraints, and socio-economic aspirations on the other. The question “two or three?” is not merely arithmetic; it is about how India imagines its linguistic future in schools, and whether policy can be both idealistic and implementable without harming the very students it seeks to empower.
NEP 2020, CBSE’s circular, and the flashpoint
The National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 revived the long-debated three-language formula (TLF), recommending that students learn three languages, with at least two being indigenous to India, while leaving the specific choice of languages to states, regions, and eventually students themselves. The policy’s stated goals include strengthening mother-tongue education, promoting inter-regional understanding, and enhancing cognitive and communicative capacities through multilingualism.
In May 2026, CBSE issued a circular mandating that from the 2026–27 academic session, students in Classes VI to IX must study three languages (labelled R1, R2, R3), with at least two being “native Indian languages”. Foreign languages such as French, German, or Spanish could be taken only as the third language after two Indian languages, or as an additional fourth language. English, despite its pervasive role in Indian education and employment, was categorised as a “non-native” or “foreign” language for the purposes of this formula.
This triggered a wave of petitions from parents, schools, and students, arguing that the policy, as implemented, would:
- Disrupt existing language combinations (for example, students who had been studying English plus a foreign language alongside their regional language).
- Impose an additional academic burden, especially on Class IX students facing board examinations.
- Ignore ground realities such as shortages of trained teachers, textbooks, and infrastructure for multiple Indian languages.
- Undermine the practical value of English by treating it as just another “foreign” language, despite its de facto status as a link language and a key determinant of employability.
The Court’s concerns: burden, timing, and the status of English
The Supreme Court, while not striking down the three-language policy itself, has repeatedly emphasised that “learning a language never goes to waste” but that children should not be subjected to undue pressure. A bench headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant raised several specific concerns in hearings in July–September 2026:
- Student burden and timing: The Court questioned the wisdom of introducing a major curricular shift abruptly in Class IX, a critical exam year, and suggested that implementation should ideally begin in Class VI or earlier so that students have time to adjust. It even floated the idea of giving the current Class VI cohort a one-year reprieve to allow “elbow space” for students and parents.
- Infrastructure and readiness: The bench asked pointed questions about the availability of teachers for up to 23 Indian languages, the readiness of textbooks and learning materials, and whether schools had the classroom hours and scheduling flexibility to accommodate an extra language without overloading timetables. These are not abstract concerns; research on NEP 2020 consistently flags teacher shortages, especially in rural and government schools, as a major bottleneck for multilingual instruction.
- English as “non-native”: Perhaps the most politically sensitive issue is the classification of English. The Court asked how English could be treated as a non-native language when it functions as a pan-Indian link language and a crucial tool for higher education and global employment. While the Court has not declared English an “Indian language”, it has signalled that policymakers must reconcile the symbolic aim of promoting Indian languages with the pragmatic reality of English’s role.
- Continuity for existing learners: Petitioners highlighted that many students had chosen foreign languages in middle school and would now be forced to drop them or reconfigure their language combinations. The Court asked CBSE to consider transitional arrangements so that students are not penalised for choices made under earlier rules.
In response, the Court has granted certain interim reliefs, such as making the Class X language examination an internal assessment for students in Classes VI–IX affected by the transition, and has suggested delaying full implementation to 2027 while an expert committee examines the difficulties.
Why “two or three” matters: federalism, identity, and opportunity?
At its core, the debate over two versus three languages is a debate about India’s federal compact and its educational priorities.
Federalism and linguistic diversity
India’s linguistic map is extraordinarily complex, with 22 scheduled languages and hundreds of others. The three-language formula was originally conceived as a compromise: a way to ensure that students learn their mother tongue or regional language, another Indian language (often Hindi in non-Hindi states or a South Indian language in Hindi-speaking states), and English, thereby fostering national integration without imposing a single lingua franca.
However, the formula has always been politically fraught. Tamil Nadu, for instance, has long adhered to a two-language policy (Tamil and English), viewing any push for a third language—especially Hindi—as an encroachment on state autonomy and a potential tool for Hindi imposition. Other states have implemented the TLF unevenly, depending on political will, resource availability, and local linguistic demographics.
The Court’s interventions acknowledge the merit of learning more Indian languages to strengthen federalism and mutual understanding across regions. Yet they also recognise that a one-size-fits-all mandate from the centre, implemented without adequate consultation or resources, can exacerbate centre–state tensions and undermine the very spirit of cooperative federalism that NEP 2020 claims to uphold.
Identity, mother tongue, and cognitive benefits
There is strong pedagogical evidence that early education in the mother tongue improves comprehension, retention, and overall learning outcomes. NEP 2020’s emphasis on instruction in the home language at least until Grade 5 aligns with global best practices and constitutional provisions such as Article 350A, which mandates facilities for instruction in the mother tongue at the primary stage for linguistic minority groups.
In this light, the push for two Indian languages can be seen as an attempt to deepen multilingual competence and affirm linguistic identities that have often been marginalised in an English-dominated system. Learning multiple Indian languages can also enhance cognitive flexibility, cultural empathy, and social mobility within India’s diverse labour market.
However, these benefits depend on how the policy is implemented. If the third language is added as an extra burden without reducing other curricular loads, or if it is taught poorly due to teacher shortages, the result may be superficial proficiency in three languages rather than deep competence in any. Moreover, if the policy effectively sidelines English or foreign languages that students and parents value, it may be perceived not as empowerment but as a constraint on opportunity.
Employability, English, and global competitiveness
For many Indian families, English is not just a subject; it is a gateway to higher education, competitive examinations, and jobs in sectors ranging from IT to healthcare to civil services. While NEP 2020 does not dismiss English, its treatment as one among three languages—without a clear roadmap for how English proficiency will be ensured alongside two Indian languages—has created anxiety.
The Court’s questioning of English’s “non-native” tag reflects this reality. In practice, English functions as a de facto link language across states, often bridging communication gaps between speakers of different Indian languages. Reclassifying it as “foreign” for policy purposes risks sending the wrong signal to schools, parents, and students, potentially leading to reduced emphasis on English in favour of less practically useful language combinations (for example, defaulting to Hindi and Sanskrit in many CBSE schools).
At the same time, the Court has clarified that foreign languages are not being banned; students can still study French, German, Japanese, or Spanish, but only after fulfilling the two-Indian-language requirement or as a fourth language. The issue is one of sequencing and priority: whether the policy framework adequately balances the promotion of Indian languages with the global and national utility of English and other foreign languages.
Implementation challenges: teachers, textbooks, timetables
Even if one accepts the normative case for three languages, the practical hurdles are formidable.
- Teacher availability: Implementing the TLF at scale requires thousands of additional language teachers, proficient not only in their assigned language but also in pedagogical methods for multilingual classrooms. Many states, especially those with limited multilingual teaching traditions, lack such capacity.
- Textbooks and materials: Developing quality textbooks, audio-visual resources, and assessment tools in multiple languages is time-consuming and expensive. Petitioners have pointed out that some schools were asked to implement the policy without adequate learning materials in place.
- Timetabling and workload: Adding a third language without reducing other curricular components means longer school days, more homework, and greater examination pressure. For Class IX students already preparing for board exams, this can be particularly stressful.
- Equity concerns: Well-resourced private schools may manage the transition by hiring additional teachers and offering a wide range of language options. Government and rural schools, however, may default to the easiest combinations (often Hindi and Sanskrit), effectively narrowing rather than expanding linguistic exposure for disadvantaged students.
These are not minor operational issues; they go to the heart of whether the policy will achieve its stated goals or simply become another top-down mandate that widens existing inequalities.
What the Court’s stance suggests: judicial pragmatism over ideological rigidity?
The Supreme Court’s approach so far is notable for its pragmatism. It has not rejected the three-language ideal outright; instead, it has focused on the manner of implementation. Key elements of this stance include:
What the Court’s stance suggests: judicial pragmatism over ideological rigidity?
The Supreme Court’s approach so far is notable for its pragmatism. It has not rejected the three-language ideal outright; instead, it has focused on the manner of implementation. Key elements of this stance include:
- Protecting students from sudden disruption: By suggesting delays, transitional arrangements, and internal assessments for affected cohorts, the Court is prioritising student welfare over rigid adherence to a timeline.
- Insisting on evidence-based planning: The call for an expert committee to iron out difficulties reflects a demand for data-driven policy-making—on teacher availability, infrastructure, and learning outcomes—rather than ideological assertion.
- Recognising English’s special status: While stopping short of a legal reclassification, the Court’s questioning signals that policymakers cannot ignore English’s functional role as a link language and a determinant of opportunity.
In doing so, the Court is performing a classic constitutional role: mediating between the state’s policy objectives and the fundamental rights and interests of citizens, particularly children.
Toward a workable formula: possible pathways
The “two or three” question need not be framed as a binary. Several middle paths are possible:
Toward a workable formula: possible pathways
The “two or three” question need not be framed as a binary. Several middle paths are possible:
- Phased, flexible implementation: Instead of a sudden mandate for Class IX, the policy could be rolled out gradually from Class VI, with opt-in provisions for schools and states that demonstrate readiness. Current Class VI–IX students could be allowed to continue their existing language combinations until they complete secondary school.
- Reclassifying English for policy purposes: Without necessarily declaring English an “Indian language”, the policy could recognise its unique status as a link language and ensure that it remains a core component of the curriculum, not marginalised as just another “foreign” option.
- Resource-backed mandates: Any requirement for three languages should be accompanied by concrete plans and budgets for teacher recruitment, training, textbook development, and infrastructure. States that cannot meet these benchmarks should not be penalised for adopting a more gradual approach.
- Student choice and examination design: Students should be free to choose a third language that aligns with their interests and career goals, including foreign languages, without being forced into exam-centric combinations. Assessment frameworks should reward communicative competence rather than rote memorisation, reducing the perceived burden of an extra language.
- Federal consultation: Given the sensitivity of language politics, the Union government should engage in sustained dialogue with states, especially those with strong two-language traditions, to design context-specific implementations that respect regional autonomy while advancing multilingual goals.
Conclusion: beyond the arithmetic of languages
The Supreme Court’s engagement with the three-language policy underscores a crucial lesson: educational reforms succeed not because they are morally or intellectually appealing in theory, but because they are feasible, fair, and responsive to the lived realities of students, teachers, and parents.
The question “two or three?” is ultimately about what kind of multilingualism India wants: one that is inclusive, empowering, and grounded in evidence; or one that is symbolic, top-down, and burdensome. If the policy can be recalibrated to reduce student stress, respect federal diversity, and acknowledge the practical importance of English and foreign languages, it has the potential to enrich India’s educational landscape. If not, it risks becoming another well-intentioned but poorly executed mandate that deepens inequality and erodes trust in public education.
The Court’s interventions suggest that the judiciary is willing to act as a corrective, ensuring that the pursuit of linguistic idealism does not come at the cost of children’s well-being and opportunities. Whether policymakers seize this moment to redesign the three-language formula in a more pragmatic, student-centric manner will determine whether India’s multilingual vision becomes a reality or remains a rhetorical aspiration.
