New Delhi [India], July 16 : The Supreme Court on Thursday urged the Centre not to introduce a third language only from Class 9 and observed that doing so places an unnecessary burden on students. The Court suggested that a third language, if required, should instead be introduced from Classes 5 or 6 and discontinued by Class 9.
A bench led by Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice R Mahadevan made the observations while hearing the Tamil Nadu government's appeal against a Madras High Court ruling directing the State to facilitate the establishment of Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalayas (JNVs) in every district. The State sought additional time, citing the change in government and the need to examine issues including infrastructure and the three-language policy associated with the schools.
Questioning the Centre's policy, Justice Nagarathna asked, "Third language is introduced in which year? State language has to be taught. English has to be taught. And any other third language. Need not be Hindi. It can be Sanskrit. Any other third language. Why not Sanskrit? You don't want Hindi, you don't want Sanskrit also?"
When informed by the counsel representing the Tamil Nadu government that the third language becomes compulsory only from Class 9, Justice Nagarathna remarked that Class 9 is already quite stressful.
"That is very bad. Ninth standard is stressful. Why do you introduce a third language in the ninth standard? Introduce it in sixth standard," the judge said.
Drawing from her own schooling, the judge said students earlier learnt the third language during middle school, so they were prepared well before secondary school. She recalled that concepts taught in Class 10 under one board were introduced as early as Class 8 in another, helping students cope with academic pressure.
"So don't have a new language in ninth standard, please. In the fifth or sixth standard, you can start a third language. And by the ninth standard, it should stop, the third language. See the stress they're having. Advise your government. The student in me is still alive!" Justice Nagarathna said.
During the hearing, the Court also questioned Tamil Nadu's continued opposition to Navodaya schools, noting that the Centre bears the expenditure while States are only required to provide land.
"The Central Government will make all the expenditure. You have to make available only the land. All other States have Navodaya schools. Why are you depriving Tamil Nadu?" Justice Nagarathna asked.
The Court noted the submission that a new government had assumed office in Tamil Nadu and said it would allow time for the State to obtain instructions.
"A different government is there now. We don't know what their policy is. You may have your education system etc., but don't prevent Central Government schools in Tamil Nadu," Justice Nagarathna observed.
Accepting the State's request, the Court granted three weeks' time to the Tamil Nadu government and listed the matter for further hearing on August 11, 2026.
At an earlier hearing in the matter, the Court had urged the Tamil Nadu government to engage with the Centre on the issue instead of treating it as a language dispute. Stressing India's federal structure, the Court had observed that the State should place its concerns over the two-language policy before the Centre, rather than allowing the disagreement to escalate.
"Don't make it into a language issue. We are a federal society. You are part of the Republic. If you come one step forward, they will also come one step forward," the Court had observed.
The Court had also said the establishment of Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalayas should be viewed as an educational opportunity for rural students rather than an imposition. It had remarked that the State should not adopt a "my State, your State" approach, observing, "You can't have this my State, my State. This attitude must go. You come one step. They will also come one step forward," while directing the Tamil Nadu government to hold discussions with the Centre on setting up Navodaya schools in the State.
Advocates G. Priyadarshani, Rahul Shyam Bhandari and Raj Bahadur Yadav represented the respondents, Kumari Maha Sabha, the Central authorities, including Navodya Vidyalaya Samiti. Tamil Nadu government had filed its plea through Advocate B. Karunakaran.