Recently, the Supreme Court directed the State of Rajasthan to formulate a comprehensive policy for introducing the Rajasthani language as a subject in all government and private schools and to progressively implement mother tongue-based education in the State. The Court held that constitutional guarantees relating to language and education cannot be defeated by executive inaction. The Bench emphasised that education imparted in a language unfamiliar to a child undermines meaningful learning and observed that the Court “cannot remain a silent spectator to the stark dilution of rights” recognised under the Constitution.
Brief facts:
The case arose from a Public Interest Litigation seeking inclusion of Rajasthani language in the REET syllabus and implementation of mother tongue-based education in schools across Rajasthan. The plea relied on Article 350A of the Constitution, Section 29(2)(f) of the Right to Education Act, 2009, and the National Education Policy, 2020, asserting that despite its widespread use and academic recognition, Rajasthani remained excluded from school education.
After the Rajasthan High Court declined to interfere in the matter, observing that educational policy issues could not be addressed through a writ in the absence of an enforceable legal right, the matter reached the Apex Court, raising broader questions concerning linguistic identity and meaningful access to education.
Contentions of the Appellant:
The Appellants argued that Rajasthani speakers constitute a linguistic minority under Article 350A of the Constitution and contended that the right to receive education in one’s mother tongue forms part of the freedoms guaranteed under Articles 19(1)(a) and 21A of the Constitution. The Counsel submitted that education cannot be meaningful unless imparted in a language understood by children. The Counsel further alleged discriminatory treatment in excluding Rajasthani from school curricula despite its widespread use and cultural significance, while other regional languages were included.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The State contended that only languages included in the Eighth Schedule are presently recognised in educational instruction and recruitment policies, and since Rajasthani is not included therein, no framework exists for its introduction in schools. The Counsel further argued that Article 350A of the Constitution is merely directory in nature and does not create an enforceable right, while the National Education Policy, 2020, lacks statutory force to mandate changes in educational or recruitment policies.
Observation of the Court:
The Division Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta observed, “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 Court observed that language is not merely a mode of communication but an inseparable part of identity, comprehension, and meaningful participation in society. The Bench emphasised that education imparted in a language unfamiliar to a child defeats the very purpose of learning, because meaningful comprehension is the foundation of quality education. Referring to Articles 19(1)(a), 21A, 41, 45, 51A(k), and 350A of the Constitution, the Court held that the constitutional framework itself recognises the importance of mother tongue-based education and obligates the State to ensure that education remains intelligible, inclusive, and accessible.
The Bench observed that Section 29(2)(f) of the Right to Education Act, 2009 and the National Education Policy, 2020, clearly reinforce the principle that children grasp concepts more effectively when taught in their mother tongue or regional language. The Court noted that education delivered through unfamiliar linguistic mediums can impair foundational understanding, create alienation, and obstruct cognitive development. It further held that the right to receive information and education in a meaningful and comprehensible form forms part of the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.
The Court strongly criticised the State of Rajasthan’s stand that only languages included in the Eighth Schedule could be introduced in schools, describing it as a pedantic approach. The Bench pointed out that Rajasthani was already being taught in universities across the State, thereby disproving the argument that the language lacked institutional or pedagogical acceptance. It held that the absence of a policy framework cannot justify continued executive inaction, especially where constitutional and statutory obligations already exist.
The decision of the Court:
In light of the foregoing discussion, the Apex Court set aside the High Court’s judgment and allowed the appeal. The Court directed the State of Rajasthan to formulate an appropriate and comprehensive policy for implementing mother tongue-based education and to take affirmative, time-bound measures to introduce Rajasthani as a subject in all government and private schools in a phased manner. The State was also directed to file a compliance affidavit by September 25, 2026.
Case Title: Padam Mehta and Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors
Case No.: SLP (C) No. 1425 of 2025
Citation : 2026 Latest Caselaw 379 SC
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vikram Nath, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Mehta
Advocate for the Petitioner: Sr. Adv. Manish Singhvi, Adv. Apurv Singhvi, Adv. Shalini Haldar, Adv. Jitesh Saluja, Adv. Shashank Kumar Saurav, Adv. Suprabh Kumar Roshan, AOR D. K. Devesh
Advocate for the Respondent: A.A.G Shiv Mangal Sharma, AOR Nidhi Jaswal, AOR Ajay Singh, Adv. Sonali Gaur, Adv. Saurabh Rajpal
Picture Source :
