Supreme Court Questions CBSE's Third Language in Class 9, Says It Adds Unnecessary Stress Before Board Exams

"Don't start a new language in 9th. Start it in 6th." — Justice BV Nagarathna

Supreme Court Raises Concern Over Third Language in Class 9

The Supreme Court of India on Thursday expressed concern over the introduction of a third language from Class 9 under the CBSE curriculum, observing that students already face significant academic pressure while preparing for board examinations.

Justice B.V. Nagarathna remarked that introducing a new language at such a crucial stage places unnecessary stress on students and suggested that any third language should instead be introduced during middle school.

The observations were made during the hearing of Tamil Nadu's appeal against a Madras High Court judgment directing the establishment of Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalayas (JNVs) in every district of the State.

Third Language Policy Came Up During JNV Hearing

The Bench comprising Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice R. Mahadevan was hearing the dispute over the establishment of Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalayas in Tamil Nadu.

Although the constitutional validity of the CBSE's three-language policy was not directly under consideration in this case, the issue arose because Tamil Nadu has consistently opposed the establishment of JNVs, citing its long-standing two-language policy.

The CBSE language policy itself is currently under challenge in separate Public Interest Litigations before a Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, which has not stayed its implementation and is scheduled to hear the matter next week.

Justice Nagarathna: Third Language Need Not Be Hindi

During the hearing, counsel appearing for Tamil Nadu submitted that the State's primary objection relates to the three-language policy followed in Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalayas.

Justice Nagarathna clarified that the policy does not require Hindi to be the third language.

She observed:

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

When it was pointed out that the National Education Policy states that no language should be imposed on any State, the judge questioned whether there would still be an objection if the third language were Sanskrit instead of Hindi.

"Don't Introduce a New Language in Class 9"

When Tamil Nadu informed the Court that the third language becomes compulsory only from Class 9, Justice Nagarathna expressed concern.

She remarked:

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

Drawing from her own educational experience, the judge recalled that students in her school began learning a third language during middle school rather than immediately before board examinations.

According to her, introducing additional languages earlier gives students sufficient time to learn without increasing academic pressure.

Judge Recalls Her School Days

Justice Nagarathna shared her own schooling experience while explaining her observations.

She noted that during her school years, students studied multiple language options, including Kannada, Hindi and Sanskrit, and began learning the third language during middle school because it was required for the Secondary School Leaving Certificate (SSLC).

She remarked:

"The earlier, the better."

The judge also recalled that students in the 1970s started preparing for Class 10 board examinations as early as Class 8.

She observed:

"From the end of 8th standard onwards, the pressure starts. Don't start a new language in 9th. Start it in 6th."

Supreme Court Advises Union Government

Addressing the Union Government, Justice Nagarathna suggested reconsidering the timing of introducing the third language under school curricula.

She observed:

"Union of India, please don't have third language in 9th standard. CBSE, ICSE, State Board, 10th standard is a board exam."

The Court's remarks reflected concern about balancing language education with students' academic workload before board examinations.

Court Advises Tamil Nadu Against Rejecting Central Schemes

The Bench also advised the Tamil Nadu Government not to reject Central educational initiatives merely because they originate from the Union Government.

Justice Nagarathna remarked:

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

She further added:

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

Centre and Tamil Nadu Continue Discussions

The Supreme Court noted that consultations between the Union Government and the Tamil Nadu Government regarding the establishment of Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalayas are still ongoing.

The Bench observed that judicial consideration of the merits would arise only if those discussions fail.

Taking note of the recent political change in Tamil Nadu following the Assembly elections, Justice Nagarathna observed that it remains to be seen what policy approach the new State Government adopts.

The matter has now been listed for further hearing on August 11.

Background of the Dispute

The case concerns Tamil Nadu's challenge to a Madras High Court judgment directing the establishment of a Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya in every district of the State.

The High Court had held that refusing permission for JNVs restricted students' right to choose educational institutions and was inconsistent with the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act.

It had also directed the State Government to provide temporary accommodation for 240 students in each district.

The Supreme Court stayed the High Court's directions in December 2017.

Supreme Court Earlier Directed Centre and State to Hold Consultations

On December 15, 2025, the Supreme Court directed both governments to engage in discussions regarding the establishment of Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalayas in Tamil Nadu.

The Court described the exercise as an exploratory federal dialogue and asked the governments to:

• Hold consultations.

• Identify land required for schools.

• Place the outcome before the Court.

A consultation meeting was subsequently held on January 5, 2026.

Centre's Stand Before Supreme Court

In its affidavit, the Union Government submitted that:

• The National Policy on Education, 1986 envisages Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalayas for talented rural students.

• 689 JNVs have been sanctioned across 666 districts nationwide.

• Tamil Nadu remains the only State without a JNV because it has not accepted the scheme.

The Centre further clarified:

• Classes VI to VIII are taught in the regional language or English in non-Hindi speaking States.

• Classes IX to XII are taught in English for science, mathematics, humanities and social sciences.

The Union Government also stated that establishing a JNV requires the State to:

• Accept the scheme.

• Provide around 30 acres of land free of cost.

• Arrange temporary accommodation and basic infrastructure.

Tamil Nadu's Stand

Tamil Nadu argued that the JNV scheme conflicts with its statutory two-language policy.

The State relied upon:

• Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly Resolution of 1968.

• Tamil Nadu Tamil Learning Act, 2006.

According to the State:

• Tamil and English are compulsory languages.

• A third language is permitted only as an optional subject.

The State contended that implementing the JNV scheme would require deviation from its statutory framework.

Tamil Nadu also informed the Court that it already operates 38 Model Residential Schools, one in each district, with:

• Around ₹50 crore capital expenditure per school.

• Annual operational expenditure of approximately ₹210 crore, fully funded by the State.

For the academic year 2024-25, the State stated that:

• 1,340 students from these schools secured admission to premier educational institutions.

• Several students received fully funded international scholarships.

The State suggested that instead of opening new JNVs, the Centre could financially support these existing schools or modify the JNV policy to align with Tamil Nadu's legal framework.

Tamil Nadu also informed the Court that ₹3,548.22 crore under the Samagra Shiksha Scheme remained pending out of an approved Central share of ₹3,998.82 crore for the financial years 2024-25 and 2025-26, stating that the delay had affected educational programmes.

Case Details

Case: State of Tamil Nadu v. Kumari Maha Sabha

Case Number: SLP (C) No. 33459 of 2017

Bench: Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice R. Mahadevan

Next Hearing: August 11