The three-language policy requires students to learn three languages in school, with at least two being “native Indian languages” (Bhartiya Bhashas). (File photo)The Supreme Court on Thursday wondered whether it’s correct to treat English as a “non-indigenous” language under the CBSE’s three-language policy, given its “roots into Indian society”, and said the constitutionality of doing so will have to be examined.The court made the observation while hearing petitions challenging the CBSE’s decision to introduce the three-language formula under the National Education Policy (NEP) from 2026-27.A three-judge bench, presided by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, also asked the Board to clarify if the current batch of Class 6 students can be given a reprieve and the policy be introduced from next year, given that the infrastructure is still not adequately in place.During the hearing, some of the petitioners pointed out that the three-language policy considers English a non-native language and this is making life difficult for the students.Responding to the concern, Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, appearing for CBSE, told the bench: “English is an official language under the Constitution. That status no one can take away… it’s not treated like a foreign language, but it can’t be treated like a native language also. Language is the vehicle of a culture…”Justice Bagchi said, “If we have to examine that issue as to the extent to which English can be considered as a non-indigenous language, first, I personally have a serious reservation about the expression used ‘native’. It has a very colonial import. It should be ‘indigenous’. Secondly, if you see the historical perspective of English and the extent of its roots into Indian society, it would be, I think in a final decision making process, although it’s your policy, you would take the final call, but then on the constitutionality angle, we have to see whether English can be classified as a non-indigenous language or an indigenous language. Because if you do that, to a large extent these rough edges can be taken care of.”Bhati said “non-native is an expression coming from the new education policy”.Story continues below this adJustice Bagchi said, “That is why the framers of the new policy ought to have been conscious of the words they choose”.The three-language policy requires students to learn three languages in school, with at least two being “native Indian languages” (Bhartiya Bhashas).On concerns of class 6 students, Justice Bagchi said: “The second thing which is really troubling the petitioners is whether the 6th standard can also be given a reprieve from taking the final test in Class 10. Because when you see the option, the option is 23 languages in theory, but in reality…only around 4% of schools are under CBSE and 96% are under State Boards…There are asymmetries in compliance of National Council for Teacher Education rules. Now, compounded with that, if suddenly you have another indigenous language to be taught…You would have to give some time not only for the students but also for the infrastructure of schools to come on par…If that can be reconsidered by the Council with regard to the admissibility of these classes.”The judge said, “It is a very good policy of the National Education Policy to start a child with the mother tongue and then move to another indigenous language. And a third language, maybe indigenous, maybe a foreign language… However, if it can be scaled down to that lower standard, that gives a greater elbow space for the students and their parents to take a call. Secondly the school administration can also absorb the administrative compliance regimes. They will require a compliance regime because if you see even with regard to…language, there are not adequate numbers of B.Ed qualified teachers. If you put Sanskrit here, how many Sanskrit teachers are B.Ed qualified? They may be very learned in Sanskrit. So if this can be reconsidered.” Bhati said she will put it to the experts and appraise the court. Ananthakrishnan G. is a Senior Assistant Editor with The Indian Express. He has been in the field for over 26 years, kicking off his journalism career as a freelancer in the late nineties with bylines in The Hindu. A graduate in law, he practised in the District judiciary in Kerala for about two years before switching to journalism. His first permanent assignment was with The Press Trust of India in Delhi where he was assigned to cover the lower courts and various commissions of inquiry. He reported from the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court of India during his first stint with The Indian Express in 2005-2006. Currently, in his second stint with the daily newspaper, he reports from the Supreme Court and writes on topics related to law and the administration of justice. Legal reporting is his forte though he has extensive experience in political and community reporting too, having spent a decade as Kerala state correspondent, The Times of India and The Telegraph. He is a stickler for facts and has several impactful stories to his credit. ... Read More