John J. Kennedy | The CBSE’s Revised 3-language Formula Is Failing To Deliver On Its Own Goals

The Supreme Court’s recent hearings on the CBSE’s three-language mandate have exposed what many parents, teachers and educators have been saying for weeks: the problem is not necessarily the idea of multilingual education but the manner in which it is being implemented. The court has not stayed the policy. Nor has it questioned, at least for now, the broad principle behind the National Education Policy’s emphasis on multilingual learning. However, some of its observations have been telling. When judges ask how a policy can be enforced when schools lack teachers and textbooks, they are not merely discussing logistics. They are questioning whether the issue of implementation has been thought through at all.

Let’s examine the problem in detail. The CBSE circular requires Class 9 students to study three languages, with at least two being Indian languages. Foreign languages such as French and German can only be taken as a third or fourth option. The government has defended the move as an important component of NEP 2020, arguing that multilingual education strengthens national integration and federalism. Very few would disagree with the broader objective. India is one of the world’s most linguistically diverse countries. Research consistently shows that learning multiple languages improves cognitive flexibility, memory and problem-solving ability.

Regional and classical languages deserve protection and promotion. The concern that younger generations are becoming disconnected from their linguistic heritage is also legitimate.

However, the real problem is not with the goal but with the rollout. Students who selected their subjects at the beginning of the academic year suddenly found themselves being told that those choices may no longer suffice. Many have studied foreign languages for five or six years.

Schools recruited teachers and designed timetables based on existing rules. Parents made academic decisions accordingly. Then came a sudden directive requiring significant adjustments in the middle of the school year.

Thankfully, the Supreme Court has rightly focused on this aspect. During the hearings, the bench repeatedly questioned the preparedness. The judges observed that implementing a policy when neither teachers nor books are available could be legally unreasonable. They also noted that while the principle behind multilingual education may be salutary, the immediate rollout raises serious practical concerns. These observations are significant. Educational policy cannot succeed through circulars alone. It requires infrastructure, personnel, materials, planning, and transition time. None of these can be created overnight. The court has therefore directed the Union government, CBSE and NCERT to submit detailed affidavits explaining their logistical preparedness. That demand itself reveals the policy’s central weakness. Before making a language compulsory, the government should have already demonstrated the availability of trained teachers, textbooks, assessment systems as well as institutional capacity. Instead, these questions are being raised after the policy announcement.

Additionally, the educational rationale behind the timing is equally questionable. Language acquisition research has long shown that children learn new languages most effectively during their early years. If multilingualism is genuinely the objective, the natural place to introduce additional languages is at the foundational stage, not in Class 9. Asking adolescents already coping with board examination preparations, competitive pressures, and demanding curricula to add another language suddenly is pedagogically difficult and developmentally misplaced.

This is precisely why the government’s approach appears inconsistent. For years, NEP implementation discussions emphasised gradual and phased adoption extending into the coming decade. Schools, parents, and students planned accordingly. The abrupt acceleration has therefore created a trust deficit. Trust is an essential but often overlooked component of educational governance. Parents and schools must be able to make long-term decisions with confidence. When policies change abruptly after academic sessions have already begun, predictability disappears. Schools that invested in foreign-language programmes now face uncertainty. Teachers fear displacement. Students are forced to reconsider the academic choices they made in good faith.

The debate has also exposed unresolved questions about language priorities. In practical terms, English remains the language of higher education, competitive examinations, professional advancement, and much of India’s economic mobility. However, under some interpretations of the new framework, it is treated similarly to other foreign languages. India cannot simultaneously rely heavily on English for opportunity and advancement while pretending that its role in the educational ecosystem is marginal. Any serious language policy must acknowledge educational realities rather than operate through symbolic classifications.

There is also the regional dimension, which cannot be ignored. Although the Supreme Court has so far declined to examine federalism-related objections, several state-level concerns remain unresolved. In states such as Karnataka and Tamil Nadu, questions persist about how the policy interacts with existing language laws and educational priorities. The Supreme Court may not be addressing these constitutional issues at this stage, but they are unlikely to disappear.

So, what is the solution to the problem? Simple. Introduce the three-language framework from the early grades, where language learning is most effective. Allow students already in secondary school to continue under the system they initially enrolled in. Ensure that schools have teachers, textbooks and training before imposing new requirements. Importantly, give students genuine choices rather than imposing sudden, compulsory adjustments. The Supreme Court’s intervention has shifted the focus of the conversation, which now rests on a simpler question: Is the system actually ready?

Multilingualism remains a worthy national goal. But educational reform succeeds only when vision is matched by preparation. In the current issue, the court’s observations have exposed the gap between the two. Unless that gap is addressed, the three-language policy risks achieving the opposite of its intended effect. Instead of nurturing enthusiasm for India’s linguistic heritage, it may leave students associating language learning with confusion, disruption, and anxiety.

The writer is retired professor and former dean of the School of Arts and Humanities at Christ University in Bengaluru