The Supreme Court issued notice to the Centre, CBSE, and NCERT in a batch of fresh 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.

The Court 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.

Previously, the Court issued notice to the Centre, CBSE, and NCERT in 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.

The Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana refused to stay the impugned notification/circulars, issued notice in the fresh pleas and listed the matter for arguments on July 22, 2026.


Senior Advocates Gopal Shankarnarayan, Anand Grover, Shyam Divan and Mukul Rohatgi appeared for the Petitioners, while ASG Aishwarya Singh Bhati appeared for the Union. 

Senior Advocate Gopal Shankarnarayan, appearing for the petitioners representing students of Classes 5 and 6, submitted that the policy faced immediate, insurmountable practical hurdles. He argued that while the National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT) and the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) had directed all schools to utilize the newly developed textbooks by July 1st, a physical verification in mid-July revealed that books were available in only 3 out of the 22 mandated languages.

Furthermore, Shankarnarayan highlighted a severe manpower crisis, pointing out that the state's plan required every school to offer all 22 languages as an optional choice to every student. He contended that expecting CBSE schools across the country to employ 22 distinct language teachers was entirely impractical, creating a complete impossibility regarding infrastructure and rendering the policy arbitrary.

"The third and most critical issue, which applies to all these cases, is their assertion that non-native languages are distinct from native languages. They have taken English—a 300-year-old language spoken in India and the official language of five states—and treated it as a non-native language. As a result, students are being told to learn Punjabi, Hindi, or Sanskrit, but not English", he added.

Justice Bagchi said, "We do not understand the expression "native Indian language." A native Indian language may be understood as an indigenous Indian language. The phrase "native Indian" carries specific pluralistic connotations."

Shankarnarayan replied, "Absolutely, and that is our precise grievance. If this Court clarifies that English should be treated as a native Indian language, the issue is resolved."

Justice Bagchi remarked, "It cannot be treated as a native Indian language. The spirit of the notification is to carry forward the constitutional goal of developing Hindi and other regional languages. "Mother tongue" is the expression used. If you look at the constitutional provisions regarding language, the terms used are "Indian language," "mother tongue," and "regional language." The expression "native Indian language" does not exist in the Constitution...What the authorities intended to do, in line with the aspirational goals of the Constitution, is to encourage the adoption of Indian languages as the official lingua franca of the country. In doing so, they are encouraging the integration of Indian languages. The nomenclature "native Indian language" may require a relook, but the underlying intent is clear. In light of that intent, can India consider English an indigenous Indian language?"

Shankarnarayan said, "It is an Indian language as far as many of us are concerned. It is the official language of the courts, and it is the language through which the Constitution mandates the interpretation of all statutes in this country."

Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi heavily criticized the retrospective burden placed on older students. He cited the example of a Class 9 student who, having exclusively studied English and French up to that point, was suddenly compelled to adopt a third language.

Rohatgi argued that forcing a 14-year-old student to learn a completely new regional language from scratch—and expecting them to speak, write, debate, and clear a mandatory internal examination in it by April of the same academic year—was entirely unsustainable. He emphasized that failing this internal exam would prevent a student from progressing academically, thereby jeopardizing their preparation for the upcoming board examinations in Classes 11 and 12. 

Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi submitted, "The authorities claim that students have a choice of 20 languages. Which school in Delhi can provide teachers for 20 different languages? There is no infrastructure, there are no books, and there are no teachers. A Class 9 student is already looking ahead at the academic burdens of Classes 11 and 12. They should not be subjected to this unsustainable strain."

The Court issued notice in a plea filed by parents of children presently studying in Class V and Class VI in CBSE-affiliated schools situated in the State of West Bengal, for the enforcement of the fundamental rights of their children guaranteed under Articles 14, 19(1)(a), 19(1)(g), 21, and 21A 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 petitioners sought the enforcement of the fundamental rights of their children guaranteed under Articles 14, 19(1)(a), 19(1)(g), 21, and 21A of the Constitution. They challenged the validity of Circular No. Acad-17/2026 dated April 9, 2026, Circular No. Acad-25/2026 dated May 4, 2026, Circular No. Acad-33/2026 dated May 15, 2026, and a Press Release dated June 29, 2026, issued by the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE).

The Plea, filed by AOR Shraddha Deshmukh, titled as Arpan Roy Choudhary & ors. v. Union of India & Ors., stated, "the denial of continuity to Class V and VI students is ultra vires NEP 2020, paragraph 4.13, and NCFSE 2023, which require only that two of three languages be native to India, a threshold the Petitioners' children already cross, and impose no undifferentiated bar of the kind CBSE has administratively engrafted. Finally, the Impugned Circulars, in operation at precisely the stage R3 is first introduced, disproportionately prejudice children of transferable families and defeat the foundational rationale for a national board offering a portable, geographically neutral language pathway."

The petitioners contended that the cumulative application of these impugned circulars unconstitutionally compelled young students to abandon an established foreign language studied continuously since Class I in favor of an unfamiliar native Indian language.

Furthermore, the petitioners highlighted that Circular Acad-33/2026, issued mid-session, mandated a compulsory third language (R3) for Class IX despite an acknowledged absence of dedicated textbooks and qualified teachers. The circular permitted "functionally proficient" subject teachers as an interim measure and forced senior students to fall back on Class VI-level textbooks.

In another plea, filed AOR Rohit Kumar, titled as Amandeep Kaur & Ors. v. Union of India, it was stated, "The sudden imposition of changes in the linguistic curriculum for class VI, after the commencement of the academic year on 01.04.2026 is arbitrary and unconstitutional. The abrupt implementation of the 2026-27 CBSE Curriculum for class VI vide circular dated 09.04.2026, which mandated compliance within seven days, led educational institutions affiliated with the Respondent No.2 in Delhi-NCR to halt the teaching of foreign languages like French, German, Spanish etc. overnight and instruct students to study Sanskrit mandatorily. No other Indian language enlisted in the ‘2026-27 CBSE Curriculum has been offered. Students can only study Hindi and Sanskrit and have not been given an opportunity to learn any other language."

The petitioners contended that the abrupt mid-session enforcement of the policy disrupted established academic pathways, stripped children of their chosen foreign languages, and inflicted severe mental stress and uncertainty on young learners. The petitioners pointed out that under Section 2(f) of the Right to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 ("RTE Act"), elementary education explicitly covers Classes I to VIII, thereby including Class VI. Section 29(1) of the RTE Act mandates that the curriculum and evaluation procedures for elementary education must be laid down solely by an academic authority authorized by the Central Government. By way of a notification dated April 5, 2010, the Central Government designated the National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT) as the exclusive academic authority for this purpose.

The petitioners argued that because the impugned 2026-27 curriculum and the enforcing circulars were developed and issued by the CBSE rather than the NCERT, they lacked legal sanction, were entirely ultra vires the RTE Act, and were void ab initio in their application to Class VI.

Finally, the petitioners argued that the impugned policy violated the right to equality by creating a stark class divide.

By banning foreign languages in CBSE schools, the regulations effectively restricted such opportunities to students from elite households who could afford international boards like IB or CAIE. Middle-class families and students admitted under the Economically Weaker Section (EWS) category in private CBSE-affiliated schools would be permanently locked out of early foreign language education, widening social and educational inequalities.

Accordingly, all the matters will be taken up together on a further date.

Cause Title: Yashica Bhandari v. Union of India and Ors. [W.P.(C) No. 694/2026], Arpan Roy Choudhary & ors. v. Union of India & Ors. [W.P.(C) No. 813/2026] and Amandeep Kaur & Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. [W.P.(C) No. 820/2026]

Tags: