NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Tuesday directed the Rajasthan government to formulate a policy to introduce Rajasthani language as a subject in all schools across the state in a gradual and progressive manner, asserting that the constitutional vision of mother tongue education and the National Education Policy 2020 cannot be allowed to remain “dormant due to lack of implementation action”.
A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta held that the state must take “positive and time-bound steps” towards providing Rajasthani language education in both government and private schools, while rejecting the Rajasthan government’s stand that only languages listed in the Eighth Schedule of the Constitution can be taught as additional languages in schools.
The Court ordered that necessary measures be taken to recognize the Rajasthani language and accord it due status as a local or regional language for educational purposes and facilitate its gradual adoption as a medium of instruction, initially at the foundation and preparatory stages of education and progressively at higher levels, in a manner consistent with constitutional principles and pedagogical requirements.
“The above guidance is necessary because of the perceived vacuum that currently operates in an area of great constitutional importance. The jury has been seated for constitutional guarantees and policy declarations, especially those affecting access to meaningful and comprehensive education, cannot be allowed to remain idle due to the lack of executive action.”
The court directed the state government to register the compliance certificate by September 25, 2026 and list the order on September 30.
The ruling is likely to have broader ramifications for similar demands regarding regional languages across India, particularly where linguistic communities seek to integrate indigenous languages into school education even in the absence of formal constitutional recognition.
Tuesday’s ruling came on a petition filed by Padam Mehta and another petitioner seeking inclusion of Rajasthan in the state’s educational framework and in the Rajasthan Eligibility Test for Teachers (REET), while also invoking the constitutional mandate that favors education in the mother tongue.
The petitioners relied on relevant provisions of the Constitution, the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act 2009, and the New Economic Policy 2020 to assert that children should, “as far as possible”, receive primary education in their mother tongue.
Appearing before the court, advocate Manish Singhvi, representing Mehta, said Rajasthan is spoken by millions of people and has a rich literary, linguistic and cultural heritage, but it continues to be excluded from the formal educational structure of the state despite a resolution passed by the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly on August 25, 2003 which recommended inclusion of the language in the Eighth Schedule of the Constitution.
In response, the state, through Additional Solicitor General Shiv Mangal Sharma, asserted that since Rajasthan is not included in the Eighth Schedule, no policy decision has been taken, and no administrative framework currently exists, to adopt it either as a medium of instruction or as a compulsory subject.
But the bench held that the NEP 2020 places great emphasis on imparting foundation education in the child’s mother tongue or mother tongue, and observed that the constitutional mandates under various provisions providing for universal and accessible education cannot be ignored just because Rajasthan has not yet found a place in the Eighth Schedule.
In rejecting the state’s position, the Court noted that linguistic inclusion in educational policy cannot be narrowly linked to constitutional scheduling alone, especially when the language has deep cultural roots and widespread social use.
The authority also stressed that access to education in the mother tongue is closely linked to meaningful and comprehensive learning, especially at the foundation stage. The ruling repeatedly referred to the constitutional vision of preserving linguistic identity while ensuring access to substantive education.
“Education, as an essential means of transmitting knowledge, should, to the extent practicable, be imparted in a language that the child best understands. Teaching in the mother tongue, or the language of his or her choice, enhances the conceptual clarity of the learner, ensures deeper cognitive engagement, and secures the constitutional promise of meaningful access to knowledge,” the Council said.
The court’s intervention assumes significance against the backdrop of long-standing demands for official recognition of the Rajasthani language, which has many controversial variations and is widely spoken across the state. The Rajasthan Assembly had unanimously passed a resolution more than two decades ago seeking inclusion of Rajasthan in the Eighth Schedule, but a final decision has yet to be taken by the Union government.
Ends
