Karnataka MLC opposes draft amendment on third language evaluation

Karnataka MLC Shashil G Namoshi has opposed a draft amendment to the Karnataka Secondary Education Examination Board Regulations, 1966, raising legal and procedural concerns over proposed changes to language evaluation.

In a representation sent to the Additional Chief Secretary of the School Education and Literacy Department, Namoshi called for the withdrawal of the draft notification issued on April 10, 2026.

He argued that the proposal to replace marks with a grading system for the third language goes against directions issued by the Karnataka High Court, warning that any deviation could invite contempt proceedings for willful disobedience.

The MLC also objected to the retrospective implementation of the amendment for the 2025-26 academic year, which has already concluded.

He said such a move is legally untenable, violates Article 14 of the Constitution, and goes against principles of natural justice.

According to him, changing the evaluation system after the academic cycle ends undermines the doctrine of legitimate expectation and may adversely affect students.

Namoshi further questioned the decision to treat the third language as a graded, non essential subject, describing it as arbitrary and lacking academic justification. He cautioned that the move could create unequal academic standards and raise constitutional concerns.

The representation also stressed that students and parents should retain the freedom to choose the third language and warned against any dilution of its importance.

It cited constitutional bench observations on language policy, emphasizing the need to ensure equal opportunities for students to learn their mother tongue along with Kannada and English.

In addition, Namoshi flagged procedural issues, stating that the draft notification allows insufficient time for stakeholders to respond and lacks adequate consultation.

He said frequent policy shifts without academic consistency could undermine the credibility of the state board and impact students’ futures.

He has demanded that the draft amendment be withdrawn immediately, that any retrospective application be stopped, and that the proposal be kept on hold until all objections submitted through official channels are properly reviewed in line with statutory requirements.