The Supreme Court passed an interim order directing CBSE to extend the third-language policy exemptions granted to Class 7 students to Class 6 students as well.

On the last date of hearing, the Court had asked the Union to reconsider making the policy optional for the current academic year. The bench observed that enforcing the requirement mid-term creates unnecessary logistical strain on young children and their families. 

The Court was hearing the plea filed by Class 9 and 10 students starting from the 2026-27 academic year, which assailed the CBSE Circular No. Acad-33/2026, abruptly advancing the enforcement of the policy to July 1, 2026, making it compulsory for students to study three languages, with at least two being native Indian languages.

On May 27, the Court issued notice to the Centre, CBSE, and NCERT in the matter.

The Bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana ordered, "It is pointed by the Additional Solicitor General of India that 99% of the schools have been provided adequate facilities for implementation of the third language policy, and only 1.25% of schools are yet to create such facilities. In light of this, we direct that the students of 6th standard may be granted the same exemption as has been granted to the students in the 7th standard. Post the main matter for further consideration on so and so date."


Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and ASG Aishwarya Bhati appeared for the Union of India

Mehta submitted that the Union has a detailed discussion on the issue.

He submitted, "We would persuade the Court to allow us to go ahead from 6th class from this year. Because as per our statistics out of 2,808,19 schools, the latest Class 6 data shows that only 1.2% is affected. 1.2% of the schools is affected...If this batch goes, without this, to 7th, they would not have the exemption. So they would again be facing the same problem which they are facing now."

Justice Bagchi said, "It was only a question of a soft launch. Make a soft launch so that these students can be given the same privilege as 7th standard students, and you commence from 1st January, when you are now completely on board. So the questions of logistical difficulties really become not so pressing. Then it comes to the legality as to whether this is a constitutionally defensible decision, which is another thing...it’s a question of the impact on young children."

Senior Advocate Sankarnarayanan submitted, "So the CBSE model is to kick in from 2030 onwards, as per their own National Education Policy of 2020. They have decided, for reasons they know best, to try and implement it from 2026, without having, therefore, any runway with reference to students, textbooks, teachers, nothing—no runway. So suddenly implementing it on students who already have chosen three languages from Grade 4 onwards, I think your suggestion is best, at least as far as Grade 6 is concerned, let it be with effect from 2027."

Justice Bagchi said, "This is where the Solicitor informs us out of 2 lakh and odd schools, only 1.2% may have this teething problem."

Sankarnarayanan replied, "No, no, that is because the Solicitor is talking about the position today on the ground because from May till now, without interim orders, they have been rolling it out and implementing it...The question is, if—and I don't think we really need their consent for this—this is what we are requesting from the Court, that let them implement it from 2027 onwards. From 2027 onwards, if it is implemented from 2027 onwards, I think that is best for Class 6. Let's not burden our children more and more like this."

It was contended that CBSE had accelerated the rollout to 2026 without adequate infrastructure, physical textbooks, or trained teaching staff, disrupting students who had already selected languages from earlier grades.

It was further argued that under the new framework, English was reclassified as a non-native language, thereby forcing students to adopt a native regional language or Sanskrit in place of previously studied languages. Concerns were raised regarding non-uniformity in school assessments, lack of option choices for regional languages like Punjabi, and strict conditions in CBSE circulars holding back Class 10 passing certificates for failure in third-language internal assessments. Conversely, the Bench and Union representatives noted that over 98% of schools had established the required infrastructure and that digital learning tools were accessible.

The Court said, "That is what we don't want. We want comfort, not intelligence—not to keep challenging them."

The Court had also issued notice to the Centre, CBSE, and NCERT in a batch of writ petitions challenging the 'Secondary School Curriculum 2026-27' and its subsequent circulars, which mandate the study of two languages "native to India" from Class VI onwards.

A group of parents and natural guardians of fourteen minor children pursuing their education in Classes V and VI across various CBSE-affiliated schools in West Bengal moved the Supreme Court of India by filing a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution. Each of the Petitioners' children has continuously pursued the combination of English as the first language (R1) and French as the second language (R2) since Class I, with Hindi introduced as the third language (R3) from Class V onward as a requirement of the Indian language.

The Court had also issued notice in a writ petition that was filed challenging the 'Secondary School Curriculum Part-1 (Classes IX–X), 2026-27, CBSE', alongside CBSE Circulars dated April 9, 2026, and May 4, 2026. The petitioners, parents of Class VI students enrolled in private CBSE-affiliated schools across the Delhi-NCR region, approached the apex court seeking to quash the directives to the extent that they mandated the study of two languages "native to India" from Class VI onwards starting from the academic year 2026-27.

Cause Title: Yashica Bhandari v. Union of India and Ors. [W.P.(C) No. 694/2026]

Tags: