The constitutional debate surrounding the CBSE Three-Language Policy has been sheltered by the Supreme Court from the wrath of teachers
The Supreme Court of India in a recent order has issued an interim order barring any coercive action against the teachers for the alleged failure to implement the CBSE Three Language Policy in schools till further orders are issued. It’s an observation amid the debates ongoing on language, education and federalism in India.
The controversy is related to the policy of the Three-Language Formula which was reiterated in the National Education Policy, 2020. The policy aims to promote multilingual education through a compulsory language study of three languages in school. The policy is designed to serve as a means for the promotion of linguistic diversity and national integration, however, the policy has encountered resistance in some states of the country especially where there has been apprehension of a particular language being imposed.
The lawsuit brought to the Supreme Court stemmed from claims that teachers could be subject to disciplinary action if they didn’t follow the policy. In the hearing the Court determined that teachers should not be caught up in administrative or policy disputes and that they should be protected from any punitive action until the hearing.
The case poses significant constitutional issues regarding education, language rights and federalism. Free and Compulsory Education is a fundamental right of every child as enshrined in Article 21A of the Constitution of India. But, the Constitution also acknowledges the linguistic diversity of India with the provision of Article 29 and 30, which guaranteed the cultural and educational rights of minorities.
Further, Article 350A mandates that the State shall make provisions for teaching in the mother tongue at the primary level of education, as a result of the provision made in the Constitution for the protection of linguistic identity.
Education is meant in the Concurrent List in Seventh Schedule, both the Union and State Governments have legislative competence in this field. For this reason, it is essential for federal coordination to be in place for the implementation of national educational policies, which need to be realized in cooperation with the States.
The interim order issued by Supreme Court does not vitiate the validity of the Three-Language Policy. Rather, it shields teachers from negative consequences in the meantime that legal matters are resolved. In this respect, the Court seems to have understood that the teacher’s function is only to implement an education policy, and thus that he would not be responsible for “disagreements” between governments or educational authorities.This is in accordance with established judicial principles that public servants should not be subject to arbitrary disciplinary measures while the basic policy is under judicial review.
The conflict is an example of the ongoing conflict between national educational goals and regional linguistic aspirations. The policy of the Union Government is to support multilingual education to improve learning outcomes and national integration, but some States still stress on linguistic autonomy and local education priorities.The case also illustrates the judiciary as a check on administrative power and people’s rights. The Court’s interim judgment is a reminder that constitutional governance must be fair, proportional and based on procedural justice.
In a pragmatic, rights-based decision to the growing disagreement over the Constitution, the Supreme Court has stayed enforcement of the coercive action against teachers. The final ruling will establish the legal framework of the Three-Language Policy, but the interim ruling reinforces the principle that teachers should not be “punished” for policy differences that are not within their sphere of influence. As the process unfolds, the Court’s verdict could have a major impact on the governance of educational institutions, language policy and Centre-State relations in India.
