On Thursday, the Supreme Court directed the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) to consider providing a one-time exemption from the third-language requirement for students currently in Class 6. This measure aims to prevent these students from having to take a mandatory board examination in a third language when they reach Class 10. The court also emphasized the need to maintain existing foreign-language combinations during this transition period.
“With regard to the NEP, the roll out can be done and it is their discretion. The court also asked the CBSE to examine whether the third language should in fact be introduced from Class 6 or whether implementation should begin from Class 3 or 4, while seeking a roadmap for ensuring adequate teachers, course material and other infrastructure before the policy is rolled out. A bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana said concerns over the sudden implementation of the policy, preparedness of schools and availability of qualified teachers and learning resources warranted a reconsideration of the transition for the current Class 6 batch. The court also made clear that while it was not questioning the rollout of the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020, its implementation could not adversely affect students’ rights. She also pointed out that the CBSE represents only a small portion of India’s school system — around 33,000 of the country’s 7.5 lakh schools — and said the overwhelming majority of CBSE schools already complied with the requirement of teaching two Indian languages.
“If the standard is six for you, give them a reprieve for the current sixth standard so that the issue of retrospective operation also gets obviated and their immediate issue gets resolved too,” said the bench. However, that discretion doesn’t have to impact the rights,” remarked the bench, asking the CBSE to “go back to the drawing board” on the immediate application of the policy to Class 6 students. The ASG said the policy was being rolled out in phases pursuant to the NEP’s emphasis on mother tongue and Indian languages and that thousands of experts had been consulted in framing the scheme. Upon being mentioned by senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayan, the court also flagged a separate and potentially larger issue concerning the classification of English as a “non-native” language under the policy. Bhati said “non-native” was an expression drawn from the NEP and that English was an official language but not a native Indian language under the scheme.
