SC questions introducing third language in Class 9 under CBSE, cites board exam pressure

The Supreme Court on July 16 expressed concern over the introduction of a third language from Class 9 under the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) curriculum, observing that it could increase academic pressure on students preparing for their Class 10 board examinations.

The observations came during the hearing of the Tamil Nadu government's appeal challenging a Madras High Court direction that asked the state to facilitate the establishment of Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalayas (JNVs) in every district.

A Bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice R Mahadevan was hearing the state's challenge to the High Court's direction asking Tamil Nadu to facilitate the setting up of JNVs in every district. The state has consistently opposed the schools, arguing that they follow the three-language policy.

Although the legality of the CBSE's three-language policy was not under examination in this case, the hearing led to an extensive discussion on the stage at which students should begin learning a third language.

The issue is also pending before another Bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, where separate public interest petitions have challenged the CBSE's three-language policy.

The court has refused to stay its implementation and has scheduled the matter for hearing next week.

During the proceedings, counsel representing the Tamil Nadu government informed the Bench that the state's principal concern was the implementation of the three-language policy.

Clarifying the scope of the policy, Justice Nagarathna pointed out that it does not make Hindi compulsory as the third language.

"The State language has to be taught, English has to be taught, and any third language. It doesn't say Hindi," she observed.

Appearing for the respondent NGO, advocate G Priyadarshini argued that the National Education Policy (NEP) explicitly states that no language should be imposed on any state. Responding to the submission, Justice Nagarathna asked the state, "You don't want Hindi, but if it's Sanskrit, what is the issue?"

The Tamil Nadu government's counsel replied that students are required to study the third language only from Class 9 under the present framework.

Justice Nagarathna questioned the rationale behind introducing a new language at such a crucial academic stage.

"No, that is very bad. Ninth standard is stressful. Why do you introduce a new language in 9th? You introduce it in 6th."

Sharing her own schooling experience, the judge said students in her school began learning a third language during middle school because it was required for the Secondary School Leaving Certificate (SSLC) examination.

"In middle school, the third language was started because that was required for SSLC. It was Kannada for those who had second language as Hindi and vice versa. Sanskrit was also there, so you could have a third language. The earlier, the better."

Justice Nagarathna also urged the Union government to reconsider the timing of introducing a third language across school boards, noting that students already face considerable academic pressure before Class 10.

"Union of India, please don't have a third language in 9th standard. CBSE, ICSE, and State Boards-Class 10 is a board examination. From the end of Class 8 onwards, the pressure starts."

Recalling her school days in the 1970s, she said preparation for board examinations began much earlier, with students being introduced to Class 10 concepts while still in Class 8.

"So if we had that kind of preparation and all, what about today's students? Don't start a new language in 9th. Start it in 6th... I'm recalling my experience from 1976."

During the hearing, the Bench also advised the Tamil Nadu government not to oppose Central initiatives solely because they originate from the Union government.

"You may have your education system, but don't prevent the Central government schools," Justice Nagarathna told the state.

She further remarked, "Don't have this attitude that it is the Union government, so why should we accept it."

The court noted that discussions between the Union government and the Tamil Nadu government over the establishment of Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalayas are still in progress and said it would examine the merits of the dispute only if those talks fail.

"Talks have not concluded. If that fails, then only a question of us addressing the merits arises," the Bench observed.

The respondent also informed the court that despite an earlier direction requiring the state to identify land for the proposed schools within six weeks, Tamil Nadu was seeking additional time to comply. The state requested another six weeks to obtain the necessary instructions.