The Supreme Court has directed the Central Board of Secondary Education to extend to Class VI students the same transitional relaxation already granted to Class VII under the three-language formula, ensuring that the third language is assessed internally without any pass-or-fail consequence linked to Board results.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
New Delhi: The Supreme Court has directed the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) to grant Class VI students the same relaxation available to Class VII students under the Board’s three-language policy.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana passed the direction while hearing a batch of petitions challenging the implementation of the three-language formula.
Under the protection extended by the Court, the third language for the present Class VI batch will be assessed through an internal, school-based process. The assessment will not carry a pass-or-fail consequence affecting the students’ Board results. The Chief Justice indicated that students would receive certification of appearance instead.
The direction addresses the immediate academic consequences for Class VI students but does not finally decide the wider challenge to the three-language policy, including the questions raised about language choices and the treatment of English as a non-native language.
Class VI students granted parity with Class VII
Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati informed the Court that students presently studying in Classes VII, VIII and IX had already been given a transitional relaxation.
For these students, there will be no CBSE Board examination in the third language when they reach Class X. The subject will be evaluated internally by the school, and performance in it will not determine whether the student passes or fails the Board examination.
Taking note of this arrangement, the Bench directed CBSE to extend the same exemption to students of Class VI.
Justice Bagchi observed during the hearing that a flexible or “soft launch” would help address practical difficulties while allowing the policy to be introduced across the CBSE system.
Government says nearly 99 per cent schools are prepared
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta informed the Court that detailed deliberations had taken place following the Bench’s earlier suggestion that the current Class VI batch be exempted from the three-language requirement.
He submitted that the government would seek to persuade the Court to permit implementation for Class VI from the current academic year.
According to the figures placed before the Court, CBSE has 28,819 affiliated schools and only about 1.2 per cent of them were yet to become compliant with the required arrangements. The government stated that textbooks and other learning material were available and that students had already selected their language options.
The Bench recorded the submission that approximately 99 per cent of schools had adequate infrastructure in place.
It nevertheless directed CBSE to nominate an officer to contact the remaining schools, identify the difficulties they were facing and facilitate compliance.
The Court also indicated that it would intervene if any school detained or held back a student solely because of performance in the internal third-language assessment.
Petitioners flag textbook access and limited language choices
Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, appearing for the petitioners, argued that compliance by students could not be treated as voluntary because they had no practical choice once the policy was imposed.
He submitted that textbooks were not initially available online and that the CBSE system covered approximately 28.83 lakh students. He also pointed out that neither the ICSE Board nor State Boards had introduced an equivalent requirement midway through students’ schooling.
The petitioners urged the Court to defer compulsory implementation for Class VI until 2027, contending that children, families and schools needed sufficient time to prepare for the additional language requirement.
Other counsel highlighted pressure on students, inadequate infrastructure in some schools and limited choices where only Hindi and Sanskrit were being offered. Concerns were also raised about access to physical textbooks, particularly for students in rural areas.
Senior Advocate Anand Grover questioned whether meaningful options were available to a student wishing to study a language such as Punjabi.
ALSO READ: CBSE’s New Three-Language Mandate Challenged In Supreme Court
Question over treating English as a non-native language remains open
The Court was also urged to examine CBSE’s classification of English as a non-native language. The petitioners said this classification could force students to discontinue foreign languages they were already studying in order to satisfy the requirement that at least two of the three languages be Indian languages.
Counsel questioned the logic of treating English as non-native when the Constitution is written in English and proceedings before the Supreme Court are conducted in the same language.
Justice Bagchi indicated that the Court would consider this issue when it examines the broader challenge.
Justice Mohana, while responding to submissions concerning online textbooks, referred to children having continued their studies through mobile devices during the Covid period and asked counsel to place stronger reasons against the policy before the Court.
CBSE directed to file response within four weeks
The Supreme Court directed CBSE to file its counter-affidavit within four weeks. The petitioners will thereafter be permitted to file a rejoinder.
The principal petitions challenging the three-language formula remain pending and will be taken up for further hearing.
The present direction is therefore a transitional safeguard. It gives Class VI students parity with the older batches without staying the policy itself or prejudging the petitioners’ wider objections to its legality, timing and implementation.
Case Title: Yashica Bhandari Jain and Others v. Union of India and Others
Case Number: W.P.(C) No. 694 of 2026 and connected cases
Coram: Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana
Hearing Date: September 28, 2026
Appearances: Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati for the authorities; Senior Advocates Gopal Sankaranarayanan and Anand Grover for the petitioners