Right To Receive Education In One's Own Mother Language Part Of Fundamental Right To Speech & Expression: Supreme Court
The Court directed Rajasthan to move beyond Eighth Schedule reliance and recognise Rajasthani as a regional language for education.
Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta, Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has held that the right to receive education in one’s mother tongue is an intrinsic facet of the freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India, as meaningful participation in society requires information to be imparted in a comprehensible form. Consequently, the Court has directed the State of Rajasthan to transition from its technical reliance on the Eighth Schedule and proactively recognise Rajasthani as a regional language for educational purposes in both private and government schools.
The Court said that education must be intelligible to be considered quality education under Article 21A, noting that language barriers in early schooling inflict a cruel strain on children and lead to a mechanical learning process.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta observing that the ability to understand and be understood in one's own language is a matter of existential rights, observed, “At a more fundamental level, the right to receive education in one’s mother language finds its normative basis in Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, for the guarantee of freedom of speech and expression necessarily encompasses the right to receive information in a form that is both meaningful and comprehensible. The true value of this freedom lies not merely in the ability to communicate, but in the ability to understand, internalize, and process information so as to make informed choices…”.
Senior Advocate Dr. Manish Singhvi appeared for the appellant and Shiv Mangal Sharma, A.A.G. appeared for the respondent.
The Bench noted that while the Union has acknowledged the necessity of mother-tongue instruction through the National Education Policy 2020 and Section 29(2)(f) of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, there remains a substantial deficit in ground-level implementation by State authorities. The Court warned that rights existing only on paper without administrative will are rendered illusory.
The matter originated from a Public Interest Litigation filed by Padam Mehta and another, seeking the inclusion of the Rajasthani language in the syllabus for the Rajasthan Eligibility Examination for Teachers (REET) 2021 and the imparting of primary education in local dialects.
The Rajasthan High Court had dismissed the petition, saying that a writ of mandamus could not be issued absent an enforceable legal right or a failure to discharge a statutory duty. On appeal, the Supreme Court noted that while the REET 2021 recruitment had concluded, the broader constitutional questions regarding linguistic inclusivity in education warranted judicial intervention.
Now, the Court located the normative basis for mother-tongue instruction in the intersection of Articles 19(1)(a), 21A, and 350A of the Constitution of India. It rejected the State’s contention that only languages listed in the Eighth Schedule could be subjects of instruction, pointing out that Rajasthani is already taught at the university level.
“Under these circumstances, this Court cannot remain a silent spectator to the stark dilution of rights so clearly recognised in constitutional text, legislative enactments, and binding precedents. While it is not the province of this Court to enter upon the arena of policy formulation, it is nonetheless its solemn constitutional duty to ensure that the guarantees enshrined in Part III of the Constitution are not rendered illusory by executive inaction or indifference. Once the Union itself has, through legislative measures and policy frameworks, acknowledged the necessity of imparting education in a language intelligible to the child, a corresponding obligation arises for the States to take timely, effective and purposive steps towards its realisation. A failure to discharge such obligations cannot be countenanced, for constitutional rights, once recognised, must be translated into tangible outcomes and cannot be permitted to languish as mere abstractions”, the Bench noted.
“…this Court would be failing in its constitutional duty were it to remain indifferent to the continued non-realisation of rights and obligations so clearly envisaged under the Constitution of India”, it further noted.
The Court set aside the High Court's order and directed the State of Rajasthan to formulate a comprehensive policy to recognize Rajasthani as a regional language and progressively adopt it as a medium of instruction at the foundational and preparatory stages.
The State is further required to introduce Rajasthani as a subject in both government and private schools in a phased manner. A compliance affidavit is to be filed by September 25, 2026.
Cause Title: Padam Mehta and Another v. State of Rajasthan and Others (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 476)
Appellants: Dr. Manish Singhvi, Sr. Adv., Apurv Singhvi, D. K. Devesh, AOR, Shalini Haldar, Jitesh Saluja, Shashank Kumar Saurav, Suprabh Kumar Roshan, Advocates.
Respondents: Shiv Mangal Sharma, A.A.G., Sonali Gaur, Saurabh Rajpal, Nidhi Jaswal, AOR, Ajay Singh, AOR, Advocates.