'Učenje jezika nikad ne ide u smeće': SC odbija zadržati CBSE-ovu politiku tri jezika

The Supreme Court of India on Tuesday rejected a request for an interim stay on the Central Board of Secondary Education’s (CBSE) new three-language policy, which mandates that students begin studying two Indian languages starting with the 2026–27 academic session. The court emphasized that “learning a language never goes waste,” but agreed to hear further arguments from petitioners challenging the policy. The ruling was delivered by a bench consisting of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V Mohana. The court scheduled a detailed hearing for Wednesday of the following week, during which it will consider the validity of the CBSE’s directive and the potential impact on students and educators. The policy requires students in Classes 9 and above to study two Indian languages, potentially replacing previously chosen foreign languages such as French or Spanish. Petitioners argue that this change forces students to abandon languages they have been studying since earlier grades, creating confusion and disruption in their academic progress. One of the key concerns raised by lawyers representing the petitioners is the lack of infrastructure, specifically, the absence of trained teachers and appropriate textbooks, for the newly mandated languages. Senior advocate Anand Grover, appearing for one of the petitioners, stated that the CBSE lacks the legal authority to enforce such policies, noting that only the National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT) holds that power. He also pointed out that students who wish to learn languages like Punjabi instead of Sanskrit face significant challenges due to the unavailability of resources. Another point of contention is the treatment of English under the policy. Advocates argue that English is being classified as a “non-native” language, despite its widespread use in education and professional settings. Senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan highlighted this discrepancy, stating that the policy treats English as a foreign language while requiring students to study native tongues. He criticized the decision to prioritize indigenous languages over English, arguing that it undermines the linguistic diversity and educational opportunities available to students. Similarly, Shyam Divan noted that while the CBSE had made some adjustments to the policy via a June 29 circular, the core issues remain unresolved. Mukul Rohatgi, another advocate, focused on the practical implications of the policy for students currently studying foreign languages. He described the situation as highly disruptive, citing examples such as students in Class 9 who have been studying French and are now required to switch to a third language, such as Tamil, for examinations in April. He questioned how students could realistically transition to a new language so quickly, especially given the lack of support systems in place. Rohatgi also warned that the policy might lead to job losses for teachers specializing in foreign languages, as schools may be compelled to reduce or eliminate courses in these subjects. In response to the arguments presented, Chief Justice Surya Kant acknowledged the importance of language learning, stating that “learning a language never goes waste.” However, he did not address the broader systemic challenges posed by the policy. The court also allowed additional time for the Union government to respond to the petitions, directing the Centre to file its reply within 10 days. Intervenor Fauzia Khan, represented by advocates Rahul Shyam Bhandari and G Priyadharshini, added that the policy has negatively impacted the mental well-being of students, particularly those from economically disadvantaged backgrounds, who may struggle to access adequate resources or support. As the case moves forward, the focus will likely shift toward whether the CBSE has the legal authority to implement the policy and whether the necessary infrastructure exists to support the transition. The outcome of the hearing will determine the future direction of language education in Indian secondary schools.