The Court did not decide whether the three-language policy is valid; that challenge is still alive. What it pressed was a question of timing and fairness: a new language requirement introduced partway through the academic year, it said, should not be sprung on Class 6 children and their families as a surprise. It suggested the CBSE spare the present Class 6 batch and make the mandate compulsory only from January 2027, and asked the Board to reconsider its refusal to do so. The government’s counsel will return with instructions.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court has reiterated that the Central Board of Secondary Education should consider granting a one-time relaxation to Class 6 students from its newly introduced third-language requirement, observing that the policy should not be introduced as a surprise to children and their families during the academic year [Yashica Bhandari Jain and Others v. Union of India and Others].
A Bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana made the observations while hearing a batch of petitions challenging the CBSE’s three-language policy.
The Court’s suggestion
The Court proposed that the relaxation be considered for the current Class 6 batch, while the revised arrangement could be made mandatory for students entering Class 6 from January 2027. It clarified that such a measure would be without prejudice to the petitioners’ legal contentions on the validity of the policy.
Justice Bagchi framed the concern as one of giving families time to adjust:
“From next year, you can have this exercise from 6th standard… 2020 the policy was envisaged… it has been put in place in early months of 2026… we are saying put it in early 2027… so that everyone comes to terms with it… give some elbow space. This will be without prejudice to petitioners’ contentions regarding policy coming from the date that was notified.”
The Court also suggested that the Board could consider offering an incentive for students who voluntarily opt for the three-language arrangement even in the current term.
What the CBSE had decided
The Court was informed by Senior Advocate Anand Grover, for the petitioners, that after the previous hearing the CBSE had decided against extending relaxation to Class 6 students on a par with the students of Classes 7 to 9. The Court then impressed upon the CBSE, represented by Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, to reconsider that stance, keeping in view the comfort of the students and the logistical difficulty of introducing a new policy mid-term. The ASG agreed to convey the Court’s suggestions to the Board and to return with instructions the following Wednesday.
For context, students of Classes 7, 8 and 9 have already been exempted from the policy, under which at least two of the three languages must be native Indian languages. Those students may continue with two foreign languages and one Indian language, and for them the third language is to be assessed at the school level rather than through a Board examination. In earlier hearings, the Court, without staying the policy, had questioned the characterisation of English as a “non-native” language and asked the CBSE and other authorities about their infrastructural preparedness.
The CJI’s remark on a later plea
After the hearing, a counsel mentioned a separate plea seeking relief for Class 9 students, submitting that they carried advanced science and mathematics, that STEM subjects needed greater weightage, and that some schools had a full Sanskrit syllabus. While Justice Mohana asked counsel to await the CBSE’s response, the Chief Justice remarked, in an oral aside, that “everyone wants a free of cost degree without studying anything”, adding that Class 9 was “a mature class”. The remark was an observation from the Bench and not part of any order.
ALSO READ: Madras High Court: “Applicants For Govt Jobs In Tamil Nadu Must Be Proficient In Tamil”
Why it matters
The order shows a court managing the transition costs of a policy without pronouncing on the policy itself. The validity of the three-language requirement, and the contested question of what counts as a “native” language, are serious issues the petitioners have raised and the Court has not decided; the Bench was careful to say, more than once, that anything it suggested on timing was without prejudice to those contentions. What it was addressing instead is the narrower, immediate problem of fairness to children who began the year under one set of expectations and found a new language requirement introduced partway through it.
That the Court has already secured an exemption for Classes 7 to 9 explains why it pressed the point for Class 6: having accepted that mid-stream imposition is unfair to older students, the Board’s refusal to extend the same comfort to the youngest of the affected cohort sat awkwardly, and the Court’s “elbow space” suggestion, a phased start from January 2027 with a voluntary incentive in the meantime, is an attempt to reconcile the policy’s rollout with that fairness concern. It is a suggestion, not a direction; the Court has asked the CBSE to reconsider, and the Board’s response is awaited.
The CJI’s “free of cost degree” remark will attract attention, and it is worth placing correctly. It was an oral observation made when a further plea for Class 9 relief was mentioned after the hearing, not a ruling, and it signals a limit to the Court’s sympathy: a distinction between sparing young Class 6 children a mid-year surprise, which the Court is willing to press, and relieving older students of academic requirements, which it is not inclined to treat the same way. Whether the Class 6 relaxation actually follows depends on what the CBSE decides and reports to the Court, and the underlying challenge to the policy remains to be heard.
Case Title: Yashica Bhandari Jain and Others v. Union of India and Others [W.P.(C) No. 694 of 2026 and connected cases]
Bench: Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana, Supreme Court of India
Appearing: Senior Advocate Anand Grover for the petitioners; Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati for the CBSE
Status: Court reiterated its suggestion for a one-time Class 6 relaxation; CBSE to reconsider and revert. Policy not stayed; challenge to its validity pending.