For years, children in large parts of Rajasthan have grown up speaking Marwari, Mewari, Shekhawati, Harauti, and other forms of Rajasthani at home, only to enter classrooms where the language of instruction abruptly shifts. On Tuesday (May 12), the Supreme Court said that this disconnect is a constitutional issue.Directing Rajasthan to frame a policy that recognises Rajasthani as the local or regional language for educational purposes, the court held that children cannot be denied education in a language they understand. The bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta observed that “ability to understand and be understood in one’s own language is not a matter of convenience, but a matter of existential rights, for comprehension must necessarily precede meaningful participation in the society and day to day life activities.”The order came in an appeal filed against the Rajasthan High Court order which dismissed the PIL petition in November 2024, ruling that they had failed to establish an “enforceable legal right”. Here’s what to know.The petitioners had approached the High Court seeking to include Rajasthani in the syllabus for the Grade III teacher recruitment examination, the Rajasthan Eligibility Examination for Teachers (REET) 2021, and to mandate primary education in Rajasthani or the relevant local language.Rajasthani is spoken across the state by tens of millions of people. It is already taught as a subject in several Rajasthan universities. It is, however, not listed in the Eighth Schedule to the Constitution, which enumerates India’s officially recognised languages.Also read | RSS affiliate outfit takes on Rajasthan government over ‘dictatorial’ attitude of education dept officialsThat is where the state’s defence stood. The state argued that only Eighth Schedule languages are taught in government primary and upper-primary schools: so, there is no policy framework and no obligation to include Rajasthani as a medium of instruction or a subject for recruitment. As the Eighth Schedule determines which languages get specific constitutional protections, it does not set the ceiling of what a state must do for children who speak other languages.The Supreme Court called this a “lackadaisical response” that “proceeds on a technical premise that effectively sidesteps” the constitutional question. Using its absence from the list as a reason to do nothing turns “the absence of a policy” into “a ground to defend existing inertia” rather than a problem to fix, the court said.What the Constitution saysStory continues below this adThe right to be taught in one’s mother tongue is drawn from several provisions, something that the court pointed out that Rajasthan had breached.Article 350A requires a “state to provide adequate facilities for instruction in the mother-tongue at the primary stage of education to children belonging to linguistic minority groups”. The petitioners argued that Rajasthani speakers are a linguistic minority in a state where Hindi is the official language. This argument passed muster, as the court held that Rajasthani speakers fall within the protection this provision was designed to offer. Article 21A guarantees the right to free and compulsory education. The court read this as a right to quality education and held that instruction a child cannot understand does not qualify. “Instruction that cannot be adequately grasped by the students due to language barriers or unfamiliar mediums of instruction cannot, in any meaningful sense, be regarded as quality education.”Also read | From ‘Ahankar’ to ‘Bhayankar’: Why Rajasthan withdrew student renaming planThe right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) was given a wider application. Language, the court said, “being the means of expression, is the very essence of an individual. It serves as the medium through which thought takes shape and identity finds recognition.”Story continues below this adThe National Education Policy (NEP), 2020, framed by the Central government, recommends instruction in the home or regional language up to at least Grade V and preferably up to Grade VIII. It is based on the premise that children understand foundational concepts more effectively in a familiar language and contemplates the use of technology to bridge linguistic barriers in classrooms across both government and private schools.The petitioners also pointed to an inconsistency in Rajasthan’s position, as the state includes Gujarati, Punjabi, and Sindhi in its school curriculum. It excludes Rajasthani. No adequate explanation was offered as to why one group of languages made the cut and the other did not. The court found this differential treatment arbitrary under Article 14, which prohibits the state from discriminating without a rational basis.What the top court saidThe Supreme Court declined to reopen the completed REET 2021 recruitment process but went further to state that language in education is not merely a matter of “administrative convenience or pedagogical preference” but goes to “the very core of inclusivity, identity and meaningful access to the learning process”.The court was particularly critical of the gap between constitutional promises and implementation on the ground. “A right that exists only on paper, without corresponding administrative will or implementation, is in effect no right at all,” it said.Story continues below this adNewsletterFollow our daily newsletter so you never miss anything important. On Wednesday, we answer readers' questions.SubscribeOn recognising the child’s fundamental right to be educated in their mother tongue, the court said that the guarantee of free speech and expression under 19(1)(a) was held to encompass the right to receive information in a form that is meaningful and comprehensible, which at the primary school stage means the child’s own language.It relied on the Supreme Court’s 2014 ruling in State of Karnataka v. Associated Management of English Medium Primary and Secondary Schools. In that case, which arose out of a challenge to the state’s policy of mandating Kannada as the medium of instruction in primary schools run by linguistic minorities, the court had held that “a child or, on his behalf, his parent or guardian has a right to freedom of choice with regard to the medium of instruction in which he would like to be educated at the primary stage in school”.Under the Right to Education Act, 2009, Section 29(2)(f) stipulates that the “medium of instructions shall, as far as practicable, be in child’s mother tongue”. The court called this a “key provision”, noting that children grasp foundational concepts more easily in a familiar language, and that teaching in an alien tongue “risks impairing foundational development and engendering a sense of alienation or apprehension in the child”.It ultimately directed the state to formulate a comprehensive policy on mother tongue-based education in line with NEP 2020, recognise Rajasthani as a local and regional language for educational purposes, and progressively introduce it both as a medium of instruction at the foundational stage and as a subject in schools across the state.