Constitution of India — Articles 19(1)(a), 21, 21A, 41, 45, 51A(k), 350A & Part XVII — Right to education in mother tongue/regional language — Constitutional significance of language — State obligation.
The Supreme Court held that language is not merely a means of communication but forms the essence of identity, comprehension and meaningful participation in society. The constitutional framework, particularly Articles 19(1)(a), 21A and 350A read with the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 and National Education Policy, 2020, recognises the importance of imparting education in the child’s mother tongue or regional language. The Court held that meaningful education necessarily requires instruction in a language intelligible to the child.
— Paras 3, 12 to 19, 34, 35 & 39 to 42.
Constitution of India — Article 19(1)(a) — Freedom of speech and expression — Includes right to receive education in comprehensible language — Mother tongue instruction.
The Court reiterated that the right under Article 19(1)(a) includes not only the right to impart information but also the right to receive information in a meaningful and comprehensible manner. Education imparted in the mother tongue or language of choice enhances conceptual clarity and cognitive development. The Court affirmed that instruction in an unfamiliar language defeats meaningful access to education.
— Paras 21, 35, 42 & 43.
Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 — Section 29(2)(f) — Medium of instruction — Mother tongue — Legislative mandate.
Section 29(2)(f) of the RTE Act, 2009 mandates that curriculum and evaluation procedures shall take into consideration that the medium of instruction should, as far as practicable, be in the child’s mother tongue. The Court held that this provision embodies the legislative intent to secure meaningful, inclusive and quality education through intelligible instruction.
— Paras 17, 37 & 39.
National Education Policy, 2020 — Mother tongue-based education — Executive policy reinforcing constitutional mandate.
The Supreme Court held that NEP, 2020 strongly reinforces the constitutional and statutory vision favouring mother tongue or regional language instruction, especially at foundational stages. The Policy recognises that children grasp concepts more effectively in their home language and recommends instruction in such language at least up to Grade V and preferably beyond.
— Paras 18, 19 & 40.
Language rights — Rajasthani language — Exclusion from educational curriculum — State’s inaction deprecated.
The Court deprecated the stand of the State of Rajasthan that only languages included in the Eighth Schedule to the Constitution could be taught in Government schools. The Court held that such a stand was pedantic and constitutionally unsustainable, particularly when Rajasthani language was already being taught in Universities across the State.
— Paras 46 & 50.
Judicial review — Executive inaction — Constitutional duty of Court — Direction to frame policy.
The Court held that constitutional guarantees relating to meaningful and inclusive education cannot remain dormant for want of executive action. Though policy formulation ordinarily falls within executive domain, Courts cannot remain silent spectators where recognised constitutional rights are rendered illusory by State inaction. Accordingly, directions were issued to the State of Rajasthan to formulate a comprehensive policy for implementation of mother tongue-based education and to progressively introduce Rajasthani language in schools.
— Paras 47 to 51.
