Summary
In a PIL seeking inclusion of Rajasthani in the REET-2021 teacher recruitment syllabus and its use in school education, the Supreme Court held the recruitment relief infructuous as that process had concluded. It found the State's inaction on mother-tongue-based education inconsistent with Articles 19(1)(a) and 21A, Section 29(2)(f) of the RTE Act and NEP 2020, and rejected as untenable the State's stance that only Eighth Schedule languages can be taught. It directed the State to frame a policy recognising Rajasthani for educational purposes and to introduce it as a school subject in a phased manner.
Issues
- Whether the relief seeking inclusion of Rajasthani in the REET-2021 recruitment syllabus survived after the recruitment process had concluded.
- Whether the State's failure to provide for instruction in the mother tongue or regional language, and its refusal to recognise Rajasthani because it is not in the Eighth Schedule, was consistent with the constitutional and statutory framework on education.
- Whether the Court could issue directions to the State in the absence of a policy framework.
Provisions considered
- Section 29(2)(f), Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009The clause requires the academic authority laying down curriculum and evaluation to consider that the medium of instruction shall, as far as practicable, be the child's mother tongue. The Court read it as a key provision for securing quality education that is intelligible to the child at the foundational stage. (¶¶ 17, 39)
- Article 19(1)(a), Constitution of IndiaFollowing Associated Management of English Medium Primary & Secondary Schools, the Court held that freedom of speech and expression includes the right to receive information in a comprehensible form and the child's freedom to be educated at the primary stage in a language of choice, so education should, as far as practicable, be imparted in the language the child understands best. (¶¶ 42, 43, 44)
- Articles 21, 21A, 41, 45 and 51A(k), Constitution of IndiaRead together as recognising education as a constitutional entitlement and a public duty of the State, and as requiring quality education, which the Court held must be intelligible to the learner. (¶¶ 34, 35, 36, 37, 40)
- Article 350A, Constitution of IndiaNoted, as inserted by the Seventh Amendment, as directing States to provide adequate facilities for instruction in the mother tongue at the primary stage for children of linguistic minority groups, and as part of the constitutional vision reinforced by NEP 2020; the Court did not decide whether Rajasthani speakers are a linguistic minority. (¶¶ 15, 34, 40)
Held
- The prayer to include Rajasthani in the REET-2021 syllabus was rendered infructuous because that recruitment process had long concluded and could not be unsettled; but the broader questions on language in education and public employment were not academic and called for consideration. (¶¶ 30, 31)
- Quality education is linked to the medium of instruction: instruction that a child cannot grasp because of the language barrier is not quality education. Read with the RTE Act and Section 29(2)(f), the constitutional scheme obliges the State to facilitate learning in the child's mother tongue or chosen language as far as practicable. (¶¶ 34, 35, 36, 37, 39)
- Article 19(1)(a) includes the right to receive information in a meaningful and comprehensible form and the child's freedom to be educated at the primary stage in a language of choice; continued State inaction in operationalising mother-tongue instruction risks infringing fundamental rights under Part III. (¶¶ 42, 43, 44)
- The State's stance that only Eighth Schedule languages are taught, and that it has no policy for Rajasthani, was an inadequate and technical justification for inertia, especially as Rajasthani is taught at degree and postgraduate levels in universities of the State. (¶¶ 46, 50)
- Though policy formulation is not the Court's province, it must ensure Part III guarantees are not rendered illusory by executive inaction; once the Union, by legislation and policy, has recognised the need for instruction in a language intelligible to the child, the States must take timely and effective steps to realise it, and the Court may issue directions where there is a policy vacuum. (¶¶ 47, 48, 51)
Result
Appeal allowed; High Court order set aside. The State of Rajasthan is directed to frame a comprehensive policy on mother-tongue-based education in light of NEP 2020, to recognise Rajasthani as a local/regional language for educational purposes and progressively adopt it as a medium of instruction, and to take time-bound steps to introduce Rajasthani as a subject in all government and private schools in a phased manner; compliance affidavit by 25.09.2026, matter listed on 30.09.2026.