Supreme Court Questions CBSE’s Use of ‘Native’ Language, Asks Whether English Can Be Considered an Indian Indigenous Language
The Supreme Court has raised a significant constitutional and linguistic question while hearing petitions challenging the CBSE’s implementation of its revised three-language policy. During the proceedings, the Bench questioned the use of the term “native” in the policy and asked whether, after centuries of use in India, English could now be regarded as an “Indian indigenous language.” The observations have brought a long-standing debate over language policy into sharp focus.
The matter arose while the Court was considering challenges to CBSE’s circular requiring students in Classes VI to IX to study three languages, with at least two being Indian languages. Petitioners argued that the policy had been introduced abruptly, creating practical difficulties due to the shortage of teachers, lack of textbooks in several languages, and inadequate preparation for implementation. Despite these concerns, the Supreme Court declined to stay the policy at the interim stage and agreed to examine the issues in greater detail.
During the hearing, Justice Joymalya Bagchi questioned the terminology adopted by CBSE, observing that the expression “native” does not find a clear definition in either the Constitution or statutory law. The Bench asked whether English, which has been spoken, taught and used in governance, education, commerce and the judiciary for generations, could itself be regarded as an indigenous Indian language. The Court’s remarks did not amount to a final legal finding but highlighted the need for greater clarity in the language policy.
The Centre and CBSE defended the policy, submitting that it is intended to implement the objectives of the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 by promoting multilingualism and encouraging students to learn Indian languages. They maintained that the framework provides flexibility and does not seek to impose any particular language on states, while also assuring the Court that necessary infrastructure and academic resources would gradually be put in place.
The debate has also exposed an ambiguity in CBSE’s own guidelines. The Board’s circular categorises English as a “non-native language” alongside foreign languages such as French, German and Spanish, while requiring students to study at least two “Bhartiya Bhashas” (Indian languages). It is this classification that prompted the Supreme Court to question whether the existing terminology accurately reflects India’s present linguistic reality.
Language experts note that English occupies a unique position in India. Although it originated outside the country and is not included in the Eighth Schedule of the Constitution, it functions as one of India’s official languages and is deeply embedded in administration, higher education, business, technology and the legal system. For many urban families, English is also the first language spoken at home, adding another layer to the constitutional and policy debate over what constitutes a “native” or “indigenous” language.
The Supreme Court has not expressed any final opinion on whether English should legally be treated as an indigenous Indian language. The issue remains open for adjudication, with the Court expected to continue hearing the challenge to the CBSE policy. The eventual ruling could have far-reaching implications for India’s education policy, language planning and the implementation of the three-language formula in schools across the country.
