The Supreme Court has expressed concerns about introducing a third language in Class 9, suggesting that it should start from Class 6 to reduce student stress.
Shillong, India Jul 16, 2026 ALN: The Supreme Court on Thursday expressed concern over the introduction of a third language at the Class 9 level under the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) curriculum, observing that requiring students to begin learning a new language at that stage could place unnecessary stress on those preparing for Board examinations. This discussion has implications not only for students in Tamil Nadu but potentially for students across the country, as educational policies often set precedents that influence the broader educational landscape.
A Bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and R. Mahadevan made these observations while hearing the Tamil Nadu government’s appeal against a Madras High Court judgment that directed it to facilitate the establishment of Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalayas (JNVs) in every district of the state. JNVs are a network of schools established by the Government of India to provide quality education to talented children from rural areas, and their establishment has been a topic of debate in various states.
Although the validity of the CBSE’s revised three-language policy was not directly under challenge in the proceedings, the issue surfaced during arguments relating to Tamil Nadu’s opposition to JNVs on the grounds that these schools follow a three-language framework. The three-language formula was initially introduced in the National Policy on Education in 1968 to promote multilingualism and national integration. It recommends that students learn three languages: their mother tongue, Hindi, and , or another language. However, the implementation of this policy has faced criticism and resistance from various states, including Tamil Nadu, where the focus on regional languages is strong.
Questioning the rationale behind introducing a new language at the secondary level, the Justice Nagarathna-led Bench remarked: “Don’t have a new language in 9th standard please. In 5th or 6th standard, you can start a third language. And by 9th standard, it should stop, the third language.” This statement underscores the court's concern about the timing of language acquisition in the educational framework. Justice Nagarathna highlighted the stress that students experience, particularly in Class 9, which is a pivotal year as students begin serious preparations for their Class 10 Board examinations.
“See the stress they are having. Advise your government. The student in me is still alive!” she added, emphasizing the need to consider the mental and emotional well-being of students. The court's observations reflect a growing awareness of the pressures faced by students in the current educational environment, where academic performance is often prioritized over holistic development.
When informed that the third language becomes compulsory only from Class 9 in CBSE schools, the top court remarked that such a move would impose avoidable academic pressure. “No, that is very bad. 9th standard is stressful. Why do you introduce a new language in 9th? You introduce it in 6th,” Justice Nagarathna said, recalling her own experiences during her schooling when students began learning a third language in middle school. She noted that students in her school had the option of studying Kannada, Hindi, or Sanskrit as the third language, suggesting that early exposure to languages could be beneficial.
The apex court judge further observed that students already start preparing for the Class 10 Board examinations from the end of Class 8 and introducing a new language in Class 9 would only add to the burden. This perspective aligns with educational research that suggests that learning a new language requires cognitive resources and can be particularly challenging when students are under pressure to perform academically in other subjects.
During the hearing, the Tamil Nadu government submitted that its objection related to the three-language policy, which it argued was not suitable for the state's educational context. However, the Justice Nagarathna-led Bench observed that the policy did not mandate Hindi as the third language. “The State language has to be taught, has to be taught and any third language. It doesn’t say Hindi,” the top court remarked. This indicates that the court is advocating for flexibility in the implementation of the three-language policy, allowing states to prioritize regional languages that are more relevant to their educational contexts.
Additionally, the court questioned Tamil Nadu’s continued resistance to the establishment of Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalayas, emphasizing the importance of providing students with diverse educational opportunities. “You must have Navodaya schools,” the Justice Nagarathna-led Bench observed. When the Tamil Nadu government’s counsel submitted that discussions with the Centre were still underway, the Supreme Court urged the state to recognize the benefits of these schools, which have been successful in other states in promoting quality education in rural areas.
“The Central government will make all the expenditure. You have to make available only the land. All other States, Navodaya schools are there. Why are you depriving Tamil Nadu? Don’t have this attitude ‘because Navodaya school is by the Union government, why should we have it?’,” the Justice Nagarathna-led Bench remarked. This statement highlights the court's frustration with the Tamil Nadu government's reluctance to cooperate with central educational initiatives that could benefit students in the state.
Taking note of the submission that discussions between the Union and the newly-elected Tamil Nadu government were ongoing, the apex court agreed to defer the matter. “Let them get instructions. A different government is there now. We don’t know what their policy is,” the Justice Nagarathna-led Bench observed, indicating an understanding of the political dynamics that can influence educational policy decisions. The matter has been posted for further hearing on August 11, allowing time for the state government to clarify its position.
The case concerns the Tamil Nadu government’s challenge to a Madras High Court judgment directing the establishment of a Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya in every district of the state. The Madras High Court had held that the state government’s refusal to permit JNVs curtailed students’ right to choose educational institutions and was inconsistent with the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act. This legal framework aims to ensure that all children have access to quality education, and the establishment of JNVs is seen as a step towards achieving this goal.
The Supreme Court had stayed the High Court’s directions in 2017 and, in December 2025, directed the Centre and the state government to hold consultations on the feasibility of establishing JNVs in Tamil Nadu. Notably, the validity of the CBSE’s revised three-language policy is presently under challenge before a separate Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant. This ongoing legal scrutiny reflects the contentious nature of educational policy in India, where the balance between national standards and regional needs often leads to disputes.
Earlier this week, the apex court issued notice to the Centre, the CBSE, and the National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT) on a fresh batch of petitions challenging the policy but declined to stay its implementation, posting the matter for detailed hearing on July 29. The outcome of these proceedings could have significant implications for the educational framework in India, particularly concerning language education and the rights of students to access quality schooling.
To learn more about the latest developments in Education News, stay updated with our exclusive reports and analyses on AiLensNews.
