Class 9 is Full of Stress": Supreme Court Urges Centre to Reconsider Third-Language Policy Rollout
NEW DELHI — The ongoing debate over the implementation of the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 took centre stage in the Supreme Court on Thursday, July 16. While hearing a case related to school infrastructure, the apex court expressed strong apprehensions regarding the Centre's decision to introduce a mandatory third language for students in Class 9, warning that the move would place an unbearable academic burden on teenagers.
A bench comprising Justices B.V. Nagarathna and R. Mahadevan orally urged the Union government to reconsider the timing of this curriculum shift across all school boards, suggesting that new languages should be introduced much earlier in a student's academic journey.
The courtroom discussion pivoted to the psychological toll of the current education system. Justice Nagarathna pointed out that the pressure of impending Class 10 board examinations begins to mount on students well before they reach the ninth grade.
"Union of India, please don't have a third language from Class 9 onwards. It would unnecessarily increase the stress level of students," Justice Nagarathna observed.
She suggested a more pragmatic timeline for the policy's implementation. "If you want to introduce a new language, then please do it at the Class 5 or Class 6 level, but not at Class 9. Class 9 is full of stress; it starts from Class 8 onwards."
Drawing on her own educational background, the judge added, "In our day, students were introduced to Class 10 concepts as early as Class 8... What about today's students? Don't start a new language in Class 9. Start it in Class 6. I'm recalling my experience from 1976." She reminisced that during her middle school years, the third language was introduced early to prepare for the SSLC exams, noting, "The earlier, the better."
Interestingly, these observations were made during a hearing that was not explicitly about the NEP's language mandate. The bench was actually hearing an appeal filed by the Tamil Nadu government against a Madras High Court order. The High Court had directed the state to facilitate the establishment of Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalayas (JNVs) in every district.
Tamil Nadu has historically opposed the setting up of JNVs, primarily citing concerns over the three-language policy followed by these central schools, which the state views as an imposition of Hindi.
Addressing these regional concerns, Justice Nagarathna clarified the Supreme Court's reading of the NEP. She observed that the policy does not mandate Hindi as the compulsory third language. "The State language has to be taught, English has to be taught and any third language. It doesn't say Hindi," she noted.
When the respondent's counsel submitted that the NEP explicitly prevents the imposition of any language on a state, Justice Nagarathna asked the Tamil Nadu government's counsel: "You don't want Hindi, but if it's Sanskrit, what is the issue?"
Furthermore, the bench advised the state government to evaluate educational initiatives on their individual merits. "You may have your education system, but don't prevent the Central government schools. Don't have this attitude that it is the Union government, so why should we accept it," the court observed.
The hearing regarding the JNVs has been adjourned to August 11, pending ongoing discussions between the Centre and the state.
While Justices Nagarathna and Mahadevan addressed the conceptual stress of the policy, the legal battle over its actual implementation is unfolding in a different courtroom.
A separate Supreme Court bench, headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, is actively examining multiple petitions challenging a recent Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) circular. Issued on May 15, the circular mandates the study of three languages—including at least two native Indian languages—for all Class 9 students beginning in the 2026-27 academic session.
While petitioners argue that the abrupt implementation lacks adequate textbooks and trained teachers, the CJI's bench recently refused to grant an interim stay on the policy. Defending the educational value of the mandate, CJI Surya Kant remarked, "Learning a language never goes waste." However, the CBSE has clarified that to reduce undue pressure, there will be no board examination for the third language at the Class 10 level; assessments will remain strictly internal.
The Supreme Court's observations highlight a massive disconnect between top-down educational policymaking and the ground realities of student mental health. Justice Nagarathna is absolutely correct: throwing a brand-new language at a 14-year-old who is already stressing over board exam preparations is a recipe for academic burnout. While the NEP's goal of promoting multilingualism is commendable, the execution must be practical. Introducing the third language in Class 5 or 6 allows students to naturally absorb it without the looming threat of board assessments. As the separate bench under CJI Surya Kant evaluates the CBSE's rapid rollout, one hopes the Centre takes Justice Nagarathna's pragmatic advice to heart.