2026 INSC 476 1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2026

(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 1425 of 2025)

PADAM MEHTA AND

ANOTHER ….APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

STATE OF RAJASTHAN

AND OTHERS ….RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G M E N T

Mehta, J.

1. Heard.

2. Leave granted.

3. The ability to understand and be understood in

one’s own language is not a matter of convenience,

but a matter of existential rights, for comprehension

must necessarily precede meaningful participation in

the society and day to day life activities. It is in this

context that language, being the means of

expression, is the very essence of an individual. It

2

CIVIL APPEAL @ SLP(C) NO. 1425 OF 2025

serves as the medium through which thought takes

shape and identity finds recognition. Therefore, in a

society governed by law, the accessibility of language

assumes constitutional significance.

4. In light of the foregoing reflection, which

underscores the fundamental significance of

language as the most powerful medium of

comprehension and meaningful participation, we

shall now proceed to examine the present

controversy.

5. The appellants have approached this Court by

way of the instant appeal, under Article 136 of the

Constitution of India, 1950

1, for assailing the

impugned final order dated 27

th November, 2024

passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan

at Jodhpur

2 in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5294 of

2021 whereby the High Court dismissed the Public

Interest Litigation filed by the appellants.

6. The appellants, by way of the aforesaid Public

Interest Litigation, had approached the High Court

seeking a direction to the respondents to include the

Rajasthani language in the examination syllabus for

1

Hereinafter, referred to as “Constitution”.

2

Hereinafter, referred to as “High Court”.

3

CIVIL APPEAL @ SLP(C) NO. 1425 OF 2025

recruitment to the post of Teacher, Grade-III, Level-I

and Level-II, under the Rajasthan Eligibility

Examination for Teachers, 2021

3. The appellants also

sought a direction to the respondents to impart

education to children in the Rajasthani language or

the relevant local language.

7. The High Court dismissed the petition on the

premise that a writ of mandamus can be issued only

upon the petitioners/appellants establishing an

enforceable legal right and demonstrating a

corresponding failure on the part of the State

authorities to discharge a statutory duty.

8. Being aggrieved, the appellants are before this

Court by way of the present appeal by special leave.

9. Before adverting to the merits of the

controversy, it would be apposite to briefly take note

of certain foundational aspects pertaining to the role

and significance of language, particularly in the

context of education and constitutional guarantees,

so as to place the issues arising in the present appeal

in their true and wholesome perspective.

3

Hereinafter, referred to as “REET, 2021”.

4

CIVIL APPEAL @ SLP(C) NO. 1425 OF 2025

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

10. Language has existed in one form or other since

times immemorial. It has served as the enduring

thread through which successive generations have

transmitted culture, knowledge, and values from one

generation to the next.

11. The Constituent Assembly was deeply

conscious of the pivotal role that language plays in

shaping the unity and identity of a nation. The

debates of the Assembly reflect an acute awareness

of the unifying potential of language and its capacity

to bind together the diverse cultural fabric of India,

particularly in the context of education and nation-

building.

12. The framers of the Constitution devoted an

entire Part to the subject of language, being fully

conscious of its profound bearing on national

integration, cultural identity, and access to education

and justice. Part XVII of the Constitution (Articles

343 to 351) delineates the constitutional framework

governing the official languages of the Union and the

States, while at the same time preserving and

promoting India’s rich linguistic diversity.

5

CIVIL APPEAL @ SLP(C) NO. 1425 OF 2025

13. The Constitution, in its original form,

recognized fourteen languages in the Eighth

Schedule, reflecting the linguistic diversity of the

newly independent nation. However, pursuant to

successive constitutional amendments, the list of

languages in the Eighth Schedule has been

progressively expanded. As it stands today, the

Eighth Schedule comprises twenty-two languages,

embodying the constitutional recognition of India’s

plural linguistic heritage and its commitment to

fostering unity in diversity.

14. In the deliberations of the Constituent Assembly

of India, the question of language was not confined to

matters of official usage, but extended to concerns of

far-reaching import, including the use of the mother

tongue at the primary stage of education, an issue of

enduring relevance in every multilingual society

characterised by substantial linguistic diversity, as

well as the determination of the medium of

instruction in universities and other institutions of

higher learning.

15. The significance accorded to these concerns did

not remain at the level of principle alone but found

concrete constitutional expression in the years that

6

CIVIL APPEAL @ SLP(C) NO. 1425 OF 2025

followed. By virtue of the Seventh Amendment

4 to the

Constitution, Article 350A came to be incorporated

into the Constitution, with the avowed object of

ensuring that the States shall provide adequate

facilities for instruction in the mother tongue at the

primary stage of education for children belonging to

linguistic minority groups.

16. The constitutional recognition of the importance

of the mother tongue in early education was further

reinforced by subsequent policy developments at the

national level, reflecting a consistent and evolving

consensus on the issue. In this regard, the Education

Commission (1964-66), famously known as D.S.

Kothari Commission, was constituted by the

Government of India to undertake a comprehensive

review of the state of education and to recommend

measures for its comprehensive reform. The

Commission placed strong emphasis on the

centrality of regional languages within the

educational system and recommended a three -

language formula, under which the first language of

instruction would ordinarily be the mother tongue or

4

Constitution (Seventh Amendment) Act, 1956, S. 21.

7

CIVIL APPEAL @ SLP(C) NO. 1425 OF 2025

the regional language. It further underscored that the

regional language ought to serve as the medium of

education not only at the school level but should

extend to higher stages of learning as well. The report

of the Commission was subsequently adopted in the

National Policy on Education, 1968, and its core

recommendations came to be reiterated in the

subsequent iterations of the National Policy on

Education in 1986 and 1992, thereby lending

enduring policy support to the constitutional vision.

17. In furtherance of the objective of securing

inclusive and equitable education for all children

between the age of six and fourteen years, Parliament

enacted the pathbreaking statute i.e., the Right of

Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act,

2009

5, with a view to guarantee every child the right

to full-time elementary education of satisfactory and

equitable quality. Significantly, recognising the

foundational role of the mother tongue in facilitating

meaningful learning, the legislature incorporated

Section 29(2)(f) therein, mandating that the academic

authority, while formulating the curriculum and

5

Hereinafter, referred to as “RTE Act, 2009”.

8

CIVIL APPEAL @ SLP(C) NO. 1425 OF 2025

evaluation procedures, shall take into consideration

that the medium of instruction shall, as far as

practicable, be in the child’s mother tongue, an

expression of legislative intent whose full and faithful

operationalisation would fall for consideration at a

later stage. Section 29(2)(f) is extracted below for ease

of reference:-

“29. Curriculum and evaluation procedure.—

(1) The curriculum and the evaluation procedure

for elementary education shall be laid down by an

academic authority to be specified by the

appropriate Government, by notification.

(2) The academic authority, while laying down the

curriculum and the evaluation procedure under

sub-section (1), shall take into consideration the

following, namely:—

(a) conformity with the values

enshrined in the Constitution;

(b) all round development of the child;

(c) building up child's knowledge,

potentiality and talent;

(d) development of physical and mental

abilities to the fullest extent;

(e) learning through activities,

discovery and exploration in a child

friendly and child-centered manner;

9

CIVIL APPEAL @ SLP(C) NO. 1425 OF 2025

(f) medium of instructions shall, as

far as practicable, be in child's

mother tongue;

(g) making the child free of fear,

trauma and anxiety and helping the

child to express views freely;

(h) comprehensive and continuous

evaluation of child's understanding of

knowledge and his or her ability to

apply the same.”

(Emphasis supplied)

18. This legislative mandate has been further

strengthened and elaborated in contemporary policy

frameworks. The National Education Policy, 2020

6,

which seeks to comprehensively reform the education

system in the country, places marked emphasis on

the primacy of the home, local, and regional language

in early education. It acknowledges, on a considered

pedagogical basis, that young children grasp and

internalise complex concepts with greater ease when

instructed in their mother tongue. Accordingly, the

Policy recommends that, whereve r feasible, the

medium of instruction up to at least Grade V, and

preferably up to Grade VIII and beyond, ought to be

the home or regional language, while also envisaging

6

Hereinafter, referred to as “NEP, 2020”.

10

CIVIL APPEAL @ SLP(C) NO. 1425 OF 2025

its continued use as a subject of instruction

thereafter. Notably, this framework is intended to be

uniformly adhered to by both public and private

educational institutions, thereby embedding

linguistic inclusivity at the core of the instructional

paradigm.

19. NEP, 2020 further contemplates the

deployment of technology as an enabling instrument

to bridge linguistic barriers, so as to facilitate more

effective communication between teachers and

students and to enhance comprehension by allowing

instruction and learning to take place in the child’s

home or regional language, in furtherance of the

overarching objective of mother tongue -based

education. Such technological adaptations are

intended to aid teachers in instructional delivery and

assist students in comprehending complex concepts

in their home or regional language and are to be

piloted and implemented in a manner that

strengthens the overarching objective of imparting

instructions in mother-tongue.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS

20. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants

submitted that Rajasthani speaking population

11

CIVIL APPEAL @ SLP(C) NO. 1425 OF 2025

squarely falls within the ambit of a “linguistic

minority” for the purposes of Article 350A of the

Constitution. The expression “linguistic minority” is

not to be understood in a narrow or rigid sense, but

in relation to the dominant or official language of the

State. In the State of Rajasthan, where Hindi is the

principal official language, Rajasthani, being a

distinct mother tongue with its own rich linguistic

identity and cultural heritage, clearly constitutes a

minority language for the purposes of Article 350A of

the Constitution.

21. Learned counsel submitted that the right to

choose the medium of instruction, particularly the

entitlement to receive education in one’s mother

tongue, is implicit in Article 19(1)(a) of the

Constitution, inasmuch as the freedom of speech and

expression encompasses the right to receive and

comprehend information in a meaningful manner.

When read in conjunction with Article 21A of the

Constitution, this forms a coherent interlinked

constitutional guarantee, obligating the State to

ensure that education is no t merely formally

imparted, but is intelligible and effective in

12

CIVIL APPEAL @ SLP(C) NO. 1425 OF 2025

substance, which necessarily entails instruction in a

language understood by the child.

22. It was submitted that the State of Rajasthan has

engaged in a form of hostile and invidious

discrimination, inasmuch as languages such as

Gujarati, Punjabi, and Sindhi are being included in

the course curriculums prevailing in the schools,

while Rajasthani stands conspicuously excluded,

notwithstanding its widespread use and deep-rooted

linguistic identity within the State. Such differential

treatment, in the absence of any intelligible

differentia or rational nexus with the object sought to

be achieved, is manifestly arbitrary and falls foul of

the equality mandate enshrined in Article 14 of the

Constitution.

23. Learned counsel further submitted that the

NEP, 2020, lends further reinforcement to this

position by recognising that young children are able

to grasp even complex concepts with greater ease

when taught in their home language, and accordingly

recommends that the medium of instruction should,

as far as practicable, be the home language or mother

tongue, at least until Grades I to V and VI to VIII.

13

CIVIL APPEAL @ SLP(C) NO. 1425 OF 2025

24. On these grounds, learned counsel for the

appellants, implored the Court to set aside the

impugned order; allow the appeal and issue

appropriate directions in terms of the reliefs prayed

for.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE

RESPONDENTS

25. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the

respondents submitted that education is presently

imparted, and recruitment to teaching positions

undertaken, only in respect of those languages which

are formally recognised in the Eighth Schedule to the

Constitution. It was contended that, as on date,

Rajasthani has not been included in the said

Schedule and hence, no policy decision has been

taken, nor does any administrative framework

presently exist, for its adoption either as a medium of

instruction or a compulsory subject.

26. Learned counsel submitted that the reliance

placed by the appellants on Article 350A of the

Constitution is misconceived and misplaced, as

speakers of Rajasthani language do not constitute a

linguistic minority within the State of Rajasthan. It

was further urged that Article 350A is merely

14

CIVIL APPEAL @ SLP(C) NO. 1425 OF 2025

directory in character, inasmuch as it casts an

obligation upon the State only to endeavour to

provide facilities for instruction in the mother tongue

and does not give rise to justiciable or enforceable

rights capable of being enforced by way of a writ of

mandamus.

27. It was further submitted that the NEP, 2020 is

merely an executive policy statement without

statutory force and does not, by itself, create legally

enforceable rights or corresponding duties. While the

Policy recommends the use of the mother tongue as

the medium of instruction, it does not mandate the

same, nor does it circumscribe the State’s

administrative/executive discretion in the

formulation of curricula or the structuring of

recruitment syllabi.

28. In light of the submissions noted hereinabove,

learned counsel appearing for the respondents urged

that the present appeal, being devoid of merit,

deserves to be dismissed.

ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION

29. We have given our thoughtful consideration to

the submissions advanced at bar and have carefully

15

CIVIL APPEAL @ SLP(C) NO. 1425 OF 2025

gone through the impugned order and the material

placed on record.

30. At the outset, it is necessary to note that the

primary relief sought by the appellants, namely, the

inclusion of the Rajasthani language in the

examination syllabus for both levels, Classes I to V

and Classes VI to VIII, of the REET-2021, does not

survive for efficacious consideration at this stage. The

said examination pertained to a recruitment process

which has since been conducted and concluded, and

the relief, in its present form, appears to have been

rendered infructuous by efflux of time. This Court,

therefore, finds that no effective direction can now be

issued qua the said examination without unsettling a

recruitment process that has attained finality long

back.

31. However, the matter does not rest there. The

issues raised by the appellants transcend the

confines of the particular examination in question

and touch upon broader questions of constitutional

significance concerning the recognition of language

in the sphere of education and public employment.

To that extent, the grievance projected cannot be

brushed aside as wholly academic and would require

16

CIVIL APPEAL @ SLP(C) NO. 1425 OF 2025

consideration in the larger context delineated

hereinbelow.

32. Needless to state, the question of language in

education transcends the confines of administrative

convenience or pedagogical preference; it strikes at

the very core of inclusivity, identity, and meaningful

access to the learning process. Any adjudication in

this domain must, therefore, proceed with due

circumspection, bearing in mind the delicate balance

between the domain of policy formulation entrusted

to the State and the constitutional mandate of

ensuring equality of opportunity alongside the

preservation of linguistic diversity.

33. It cannot be gainsaid that education is the

transformative force, capable of uplifting an

individual from adverse circumstances and elevate

him to the highest realms of personal, social, and

economic development. It is not merely a means of

acquiring knowledge and communication, but a tool

for empowerment, enabling individuals to overcome

systemic disadvantages, break cycles of poverty, and

contribute meaningfully to the society. The influence

of education extends beyond the individual, shaping

families and successive generations by fostering

17

CIVIL APPEAL @ SLP(C) NO. 1425 OF 2025

awareness, critical thinking, and informed decision

making. An educated person is thus equipped not

only with intellectual acumen but also with the

ethical, civic, and social consciousness necessary to

participate effectively in a democratic society, uphold

constitutional values, and contribute to nation-

building.

34. Recognizing this, the Constitution of India,

through Articles 21, 21A, 41, 45, 51A(k) and 350A,

places a clear imprimatur on the right to education

and the corresponding obligation of the State to

ensure accessible, equitable, and quality education.

These provisions, read harmoniously, affirm that

education is not merely a policy objective, but a

constitutional entitlement coupled with a public

duty, integral to both individual dignity and the

collective progress of the nation.

35. Significantly, the constitutional framework also

recognises that the quality of education is

inextricably linked to the medium through which it is

imparted, reflecting the principle that education

must be intelligible and accessible to the learner.

Instruction that cannot be adequately grasped by the

students due to language barriers or unfamiliar

18

CIVIL APPEAL @ SLP(C) NO. 1425 OF 2025

mediums of instruction cannot, in any meaningful

sense, be regarded as quality education, for the very

purpose of education is to equip the learner with

knowledge, understanding, and skills. The

constitutional mandate, thus, impels the State to

adopt measures that facilitate effective learning

through the use of child’s chosen language, or

mother tongue, thereby fulfilling both the spirit and

the letter of the Constitution in delivering education

that is truly substantive, inclusive, and empowering.

36. This Court has, on more than one occasion,

underscored these principles. In State of U.P. &

Anr. v. Anand Kumar Yadav & Ors.

7, while

emphasizing the importance of quality education, the

Court observed as follows:-

“23. At the outset, we may note that fundamental

right to free and compulsory education is one of

the most important rights as without education

one may never know his other rights. It goes

without saying that right to education is right

to quality education. Concern for unsatisfactory

quality of education has been expressed by this

Court on several occasions…”

37. Parliament, being alive to the pivotal role of

education as an instrument of social transformation

7

(2018) 13 SCC 560.

19

CIVIL APPEAL @ SLP(C) NO. 1425 OF 2025

and substantive equality, enacted RTE Act, 2009 with

the avowed objective of ensuring free and compulsory

elementary education of satisfactory quality to all

children, particularly those belonging to

disadvantaged and weaker sections of society. The

enactment serves to operationalise the constitutional

mandate flowing from Articles 21A, 45, and 51A(k) of

the Constitution, and is designed to dismantle

barriers to access, foster inclusivity, and secure the

provision of education that is not merely formal but

meaningful, effective, and equitable in substance.

38. This Court in Devesh Sharma v. Union of

India & Ors.

8, highlighted the transformative

purpose of RTE Act, 2009 and the broad remedial

purpose it seeks to achieve, and observed as follows:-

“18. In order to fulfil the above mandate the

Right to Education Act, 2009, was passed by

Parliament on 20 -8-2009, which became

effective from 1-4-2010. The Object and

Reasons of the Act declared loud and clear

that what the Act seeks to achieve is not

merely “free” and “compulsory” elementary

education, but equally important would be

the “Quality” of this education! The Preamble

to the Act states “that every child has a right

to be provided full-time elementary education

of satisfactory and equitable “quality” in a

8

(2023) 18 SCC 339.

20

CIVIL APPEAL @ SLP(C) NO. 1425 OF 2025

formal school which satisfies certain

essential norms and standards”.

19. When the validity of the Act was challenged

before this Court [ In Society for Unaided Private

Schools of Rajasthan v. Union of India, (2012) 6

SCC 1 : 4 SCEC 453], this Court, while

upholding its validity emphasised that the Act,

was intended not only to impart “free” and

“compulsory” education to children, but the

purpose was also to impart “quality” education!

“8. … The provisions of this Act are

intended not only to guarantee right to

free and compulsory education to

children, but it also envisages

imparting of “quality” education by

providing required infrastructure and

compliance with specified norms and

standards in the schools.” [See p. 28,

para 8, Society for Unaided Private

Schools of Rajasthan v. Union of India

[Society for Unaided Private Schools of

Rajasthan v. Union of India, (2012) 6

SCC 1 : 4 SCEC 453]

20. As we can see, the purpose behind

bringing this pathbreaking legislation was not

to complete the formality of “free and

compulsory” elementary education for

children, but to make a qualitative difference

in elementary education and to impart it in a

meaningful manner. Provisions like “Right to be

admitted in a neighbourhood school” [ Section 3

of the Right to Education Act, 2009.] , “No denial

of admission” [ Section 15 of the Right to

Education Act, 2009.] and “Prohibition of

physical punishment and mental harassment” [

Section 17 of the Right to Education Act, 2009.],

are some of the heartwarming provisions of the

Act.

21

CIVIL APPEAL @ SLP(C) NO. 1425 OF 2025

21. The Act sets down certain norms and

standards which have to be followed in

elementary schools, and this is with the

purpose of providing a meaningful and

“quality” education…”

(Emphasis Supplied)

39. Section 29(2)(f) of the RTE Act, 2009, is a key

provision aimed at securing the delivery of quality

education in a real and substantive sense. Proceeding

on the well-established pedagogical premise that

instruction imparted in the child’s mother tongue or

regional language significantly enhances

comprehension and learning outcomes, the provision

intends to obviate situations where students are

unable to meaningfully grasp foundational concepts

at the very threshold. Education imparted in a

language unfamiliar to the learner not only impedes

effective understanding but also risks impairing

foundational development and engendering a sense

of alienation or apprehension in the child, thereby

defeating the very purpose of elementary education.

By mandating that curricular design and evaluation

frameworks duly account for the medium of

instruction, Section 29(2)(f) reinforces the principle

that quality education must be intelligible, inclusive,

22

CIVIL APPEAL @ SLP(C) NO. 1425 OF 2025

and conducive to the holistic development of the

child.

40. It is also pertinent to note that the Central

Government has, in furtherance of the constitutional

mandate, formulated the National Education Policy,

2020, which, as discussed above, accords primacy to

the use of the mother tongue, home language, local

language or regional language as the medium of

instruction, particularly at the foundational and

preparatory stages of schooling. The Policy does not

merely reiterate a pedagogical preference but reflects

a considered legislative policy stance acknowledging

that education imparted in a language familiar to the

child substantially enhances conceptual clarity,

cognitive development, and long -term learning

outcomes. In that sense, NEP, 2020 serves to

reinforce, at the executive level, the constitutional

vision underlying Articles 19(1)(a), 21, 21A, 41, 45,

51A(k) and 350A, all of which cumulatively stress

upon the imperative of ensuring education that is

accessible, inclusive, and meaningful.

41. This position has also received judicial

affirmation. In English Medium Students Parents

23

CIVIL APPEAL @ SLP(C) NO. 1425 OF 2025

Assn. v. State of Karnataka & Ors.

9, this Court,

while acknowledging the pivotal role played by

mother-tongue instruction in the intellectual and

emotional development of a child, underscored the

constitutional obligation of the State to actively

promote the language of the region. The Court

emphasised that the mother tongue serves not merely

as a medium of communication but also as a vital

instrument for cognitive growth, cultural continuity

and meaningful participation in the educational

process and observed as follows:-

“20. All educational experts are uniformly of the

opinion that pupils should begin their schooling

through the medium of their mother tongue.

There is great reason and justice behind this.

Where the tender minds of the children are

subject to an alien medium the learning process

becomes unnatural. It inflicts a cruel strain on

the children which makes the entire transaction

mechanical. Besides, the educational process

becomes artificial and torturous. The basic

knowledge can easily be garnered through the

mother tongue. The introduction of a foreign

language tends to threaten to atrophy the

development of mother tongue. When the pupil

comes of age and reaches the Vth standard level,

the second language is introduced. The child

who has not taken Kannada as a first language

is required to take it as a second language. At the

secondary stage the three language formula is

introduced. However, in cases of non-Kannada

9

(1994) 1 SCC 550.

24

CIVIL APPEAL @ SLP(C) NO. 1425 OF 2025

speaking students grace marks up to 15 are

awarded. Certainly, it cannot be contended that

a student studying in a school from Karnataka

need not know the regional language. It should

be the endeavour of every State to promote

the regional language of that State. In fact, the

Government of Karnataka has done

commendably well in passing this GO Therefore,

to contend that the imposition of study of

Kannada throws an undue burden on the

students is untenable. Again to quote Mahatma

Gandhi:

“The medium of instruction should be

altered at once and at any cost, the

provincial languages being given their

rightful place. I would prefer temporary

chaos in higher education to the

criminal waste that is daily

accumulating.”

(Emphasis Supplied)

42. At a more fundamental level, the right to receive

education in one’s mother language finds its

normative basis in Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution,

for the guarantee of freedom of speech and

expression necessarily encompasses the right to

receive information in a form that is both meaningful

and comprehensible. The true value of this freedom

lies not merely in the ability to communicate, but in

the ability to understand, internalize, and process

information so as to make informed choices. Viewed

through this constitutional lens, it follows that

education, being a primary vehicle for transmission

25

CIVIL APPEAL @ SLP(C) NO. 1425 OF 2025

of knowledge, must, to the extent practicable, be

imparted in a language that the child understands

best. Instruction in the mother language , or a

language of choice, fortifies the learner’s conceptual

clarity, ensures deeper cognitive engagement, and

secures the constitutional promise of meaningful

access to knowledge.

43. This position stands authoritatively affirmed by

this Court in State of Karnataka & Anr. v.

Associated Management of English Medium

Primary & Secondary Schools & Ors.

10, wherein,

upon an exhaustive analysis of the constitutional

guarantee under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution,

it was unequivocally affirmed that the said provision

encompasses the freedom of a child to receive

primary education in a language of his or her choice.

The Court held as follows:-

“39. This Court also went into the question

whether receiving information or education by a

citizen was part of his right to freedom of speech

and expression in Ministry of Information &

Broadcasting, Govt. of India v. Cricket Assn. of

Bengal [(1995) 2 SCC 161] and held that the

right to freedom of speech and expression in

Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution will not only

include the right to impart information but also

the right to receive information. In his opinion,

10

(2014) 9 SCC 485.

26

CIVIL APPEAL @ SLP(C) NO. 1425 OF 2025

P.B. Sawant, J. observed that the right to

freedom of speech and expression also includes

the right to educate, to inform and to entertain

and also the right to be educated, informed and

entertained.

40. In line with the earlier decisions of this

Court, we are of the view that the right to

freedom of speech and expression under Article

19(1)(a) of the Constitution includes the freedom

of a child to be educated at the primary stage of

school in a language of the choice of the child

and the State cannot impose controls on such

choice just because it thinks that it will be more

beneficial for the child if he is taught in the

primary stage of school in his mother tongue.

We, therefore, hold that a child or on his

behalf his parent or guardian, has a right to

freedom of choice with regard to the medium

of instruction in which he would like to be

educated at the primary stage in school. We

cannot accept the submission of the learned

Advocate General that the right to freedom of

speech and expression in Article 19(1)(a) of

the Constitution does not include the right of

a child or on his behalf his parent or guardian,

to choose the medium of instruction at the

stage of primary school.”

(Emphasis Supplied)

44. However, what is a matter of serious concern is

that despite such clear policy articulation by the

Central Government, there appears to be a

substantial deficit in the actual implementation of

these commitments by the State at the ground level.

Little demonstrable progress has been made in taking

concrete and affirmative steps to ensure that

27

CIVIL APPEAL @ SLP(C) NO. 1425 OF 2025

students are effectively imparted instruction in the

language of their choice, or at the very least, in the

regional language, as constitutionally and legally

mandated. This Court has categorically held that the

medium of instruction at the primary level must

subserve the objective of genuine comprehension and

has further located this entitlement within the ambit

of Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, recognising it

as an intrinsic facet of the right to receive information

in a form that facilitates understanding. Therefore,

the continued inaction and inadequacy on the part of

State Government in operationalising this mandate

not only undermines statutory and policy directives

but also risks infringing fundamental rights

guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution.

45. While frameworks, schemes and policies

continue to be announced with much fanfare and

panache, their absence in the lived experience of the

child renders the entire exercise hollow. A right that

exists only on paper, without corresponding

administrative will or implementation, is in effect no

right at all. Such a gap between normative

declarations and actual delivery strikes at the very

heart of constitutional governance, which demands

28

CIVIL APPEAL @ SLP(C) NO. 1425 OF 2025

not only the articulation of high principles but their

faithful and measurable implementation at the

ground level.

46. In this backdrop, it is particularly disquieting

that the State of Rajasthan has consciously tried to

justify its continued inaction by adopting a myopic

stance. It has been urged on behalf of the State that

only those languages as are enumerated in the

Eighth Schedule to the Constitution are presently

taught as subjects in Government Primary and Upper

Primary Schools, and that, consequently, there exists

neither any policy decision nor administrative

framework to recognise or adopt the language in

question as a medium of instruction or as a subject

for recruitment. This lackadaisical response, rather

than meaningfully engaging with the constitutional

imperative highlighted hereinabove, proceeds on a

technical premise that effectively sidesteps it. The

absence of a policy is thus projected not as a

shortcoming warranting prompt rectification, but as

a ground to defend the existing inertia. This approach

cannot be regarded as satisfactory, for it reflects an

utter failure to translate constitutional assurances

into concrete action, and, if accepted, would risk

29

CIVIL APPEAL @ SLP(C) NO. 1425 OF 2025

reducing the rights recognised under the

Constitution to a mere formality and the broader

constitutional commitment to linguistic diversity and

meaningful access to education.

47. Under these circumstances, this Court cannot

remain a silent spectator to the stark dilution of

rights so clearly recognised in constitutional text,

legislative enactments, and binding precedent s.

While it is not the province of this Court to enter upon

the arena of policy formulation, it is nonetheless its

solemn constitutional duty to ensure that the

guarantees enshrined in Part III of the Constitution

are not rendered illusory by executive inaction or

indifference. Once the Union itself has, through

legislative measures and policy frameworks,

acknowledged the necessity of imparting education in

a language intelligible to the child, a corresponding

obligation arises for the States to take timely, effective

and purposive steps towards its realisation. A failure

to discharge such obligation s cannot be

countenanced, for constitutional rights, once

recognised, must be translated into tangible

outcomes and cannot be permitted to languish as

mere abstractions.

30

CIVIL APPEAL @ SLP(C) NO. 1425 OF 2025

48. In the absence of an appropriate policy

framework, this Court would be failing in its

constitutional duty were it to remain indifferent to the

continued non-realisation of rights and obligations so

clearly envisaged under the Constitution of India.

49. In light of the aforesaid discussion and having

regard to the constitutional scheme, the legislative

framework, and the policy directives noticed

hereinabove, we deem it appropriate to direct the

State of Rajasthan to formulate an appropriate and

comprehensive policy for the effective

implementation of the constitutional mandate

relating to mother tongue -based education,

particularly in the backdrop of the National

Education Policy, 2020. The State shall take

necessary measures to recognise and accord due

status to the Rajasthani language as a local/regional

language for educational purposes and to

progressively facilitate its adoption as a medium of

instruction, initially at the foundational and

preparatory stages of schooling and progressively at

higher levels, in a manner consistent with

constitutional principles and pedagogical

requirements.

31

CIVIL APPEAL @ SLP(C) NO. 1425 OF 2025

50. We may note that Rajasthani is presently being

taught as a subject in Universities across the State of

Rajasthan, including Jai Narain Vyas University,

Jodhpur (offering M.A. in Rajasthani Language),

Maharaja Ganga Singh University, Bikaner (offering

M.A. in Rajasthani), University of Rajasthan, Jaipur

(offering B.A. and M.A. in Rajasthani Language). Yet,

the procrastinating stand consistently taken by the

State is that only those languages included in the

Eighth Schedule to the Constitution are being taught

as additional languages in Government Primary and

Upper Primary Schools. Such a position, in our

considered view, discloses an apparent pedantic

approach, for the academic recognition of Rajasthani

at the higher educational level itself belies all

suggestions that the language lacks institutional or

pedagogical acceptance. Accordingly, we also direct

the State to take affirmative and time-bound steps

towards introducing and providing Rajasthani as a

subject in all schools, government and private, in a

phased and progressive manner consistent with the

constitutional and policy framework discussed

hereinabove.

32

CIVIL APPEAL @ SLP(C) NO. 1425 OF 2025

51. The aforesaid directions are necessitated by the

palpable vacuum presently operating in an area of

significant constitutional importance. Constitutional

guarantees and policy declarations, particularly

those bearing upon access to meaningful and

inclusive education, cannot be permitted to remain

dormant for want of executive action.

52. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside

and the appeal is allowed.

53. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand

disposed of.

54. The State of Rajasthan shall file a compliance

affidavit by 25

th September, 2026. List on 30

th

September, 2026 for receiving the compliance

affidavit.

….……………………J.

(VIKRAM NATH )

….……………………J.

(SANDEEP MEHTA)

NEW DELHI;

MAY 12, 2026.