Supreme Court Orders Rajasthan to Frame Policy for Rajasthani-Medium Education

A Division Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta directs Rajasthan to recognise Rajasthani as a regional language for schooling and introduce it as a subject in all schools, setting aside a High Court order that had dismissed a PIL on the issue.

The Supreme Court on 12 May 2026 set aside a Rajasthan High Court order that had dismissed a Public Interest Litigation seeking inclusion of the Rajasthani language in teacher-recruitment examinations and in school education. A Division Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta held that the State's continued refusal to act—on the ground that Rajasthani is absent from the Eighth Schedule to the Constitution—amounted to a failure to translate constitutional guarantees into concrete action. The Court directed Rajasthan to formulate a comprehensive policy for mother-tongue-based education, to recognise Rajasthani as a local or regional language for educational purposes, and to introduce it as a subject in all schools, government and private, in a phased manner. A compliance affidavit is due by 25 September 2026, with the matter listed on 30 September 2026.

How the Dispute Reached the Supreme Court

The appellants, Padam Mehta and another, had filed D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5294 of 2021 before the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur. By that PIL they sought two reliefs: a direction to include Rajasthani in the examination syllabus for the Rajasthan Eligibility Examination for Teachers 2021 (REET 2021) for Teacher Grade-III, Level-I and Level-II posts; and a direction to impart education to children in the Rajasthani language or the relevant local language.

The High Court dismissed the petition on 27 November 2024. It held that a writ of mandamus can be issued only when the petitioners establish an enforceable legal right and demonstrate a corresponding failure by the State to discharge a statutory duty. Finding neither element satisfied, the High Court declined to interfere.

The appellants challenged that dismissal before the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution. Leave was granted, and the matter was heard as Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 1425 of 2025, bearing citation 2026 INSC 476.

The REET 2021 Relief and Why It Could Not Survive

The Court acknowledged at the outset that the primary relief—inclusion of Rajasthani in the REET 2021 syllabus—could not be granted. The recruitment process had since been conducted and concluded. Issuing a direction at this stage would unsettle a process that had attained finality. The Court therefore found that relief infructuous by efflux of time.

However, the Court declined to treat the entire appeal as academic. The issues raised, it said, transcended the particular examination and touched upon broader questions of constitutional significance concerning the recognition of language in education and public employment.

The Constitutional and Legislative Framework the Court Examined

The Court traced the constitutional treatment of language from the Constituent Assembly debates through to contemporary policy. Part XVII of the Constitution (Articles 343 to 351) delineates the framework for official languages while preserving linguistic diversity. The Eighth Schedule, which originally listed fourteen languages, now lists twenty-two following successive amendments. Rajasthani is not among them.

Article 350A, inserted by the Constitution (Seventh Amendment) Act 1956, obliges States to provide adequate facilities for instruction in the mother tongue at the primary stage for children belonging to linguistic minority groups. The Court noted that the appellants argued Rajasthani speakers constitute a linguistic minority within Rajasthan, where Hindi is the principal official language.

Section 29(2)(f) of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act, 2009) mandates that the academic authority, while laying down curriculum and evaluation procedures, shall take into consideration that the medium of instruction shall, as far as practicable, be in the child's mother tongue. The Court set out the provision in full and described it as a key provision aimed at securing quality education in a real and substantive sense.

The National Education Policy 2020 (NEP 2020) recommends that the medium of instruction up to at least Grade V, and preferably up to Grade VIII and beyond, be the home or regional language. The Court noted that this framework is intended to apply to both public and private educational institutions.

What the Parties Argued

Counsel for the appellants contended that the right to receive education in one's mother tongue is implicit in Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, since freedom of speech and expression encompasses the right to receive and comprehend information meaningfully. Read with Article 21A, this forms a constitutional guarantee obligating the State to ensure education is intelligible and effective, which necessarily entails instruction in a language the child understands. Counsel also argued that languages such as Gujarati, Punjabi, and Sindhi are included in school curricula in Rajasthan while Rajasthani is excluded, constituting arbitrary discrimination contrary to Article 14.

The State of Rajasthan countered that education and teacher recruitment are conducted only in languages formally recognised in the Eighth Schedule, and that Rajasthani's absence from that Schedule means no policy decision or administrative framework exists for its adoption. The State further argued that Article 350A is merely directory, that NEP 2020 is an executive policy statement without statutory force, and that neither creates justiciable rights enforceable by mandamus.

The Court's Reasoning

The Court held that the quality of education is inextricably linked to the medium through which it is imparted. Instruction that cannot be adequately grasped due to language barriers cannot, in any meaningful sense, be regarded as quality education. The constitutional mandate, the Court said, impels the State to adopt measures that facilitate effective learning through the use of the child's chosen language or mother tongue.

The Court drew on two earlier decisions. In State of U.P. & Anr. v. Anand Kumar Yadav & Ors. (2018) 13 SCC 560, the Court had observed that the fundamental right to free and compulsory education is one of the most important rights, and that the right to education is the right to quality education. In Devesh Sharma v. Union of India & Ors. (2023) 18 SCC 339, the Court had emphasised that the RTE Act, 2009 seeks not merely free and compulsory elementary education but quality education.

On the Article 19(1)(a) question, the Court relied on State of Karnataka & Anr. v. Associated Management of English Medium Primary & Secondary Schools & Ors. (2014) 9 SCC 485, where it had been held that Article 19(1)(a) includes the freedom of a child to be educated at the primary stage in a language of the child's choice. The Court also cited English Medium Students Parents Assn. v. State of Karnataka & Ors. (1994) 1 SCC 550, which had affirmed the constitutional obligation of the State to actively promote the language of the region and had quoted Mahatma Gandhi: “The medium of instruction should be altered at once and at any cost.”

The Court found the State's position—that only Eighth Schedule languages are taught in government schools—to be a pedantic approach that sidesteps the constitutional imperative. It pointed out that Rajasthani is already taught as a subject at university level across the State: Jai Narain Vyas University, Jodhpur offers an M.A. in Rajasthani Language; Maharaja Ganga Singh University, Bikaner offers an M.A. in Rajasthani; and the University of Rajasthan, Jaipur offers B.A. and M.A. programmes in Rajasthani Language. The academic recognition of Rajasthani at the higher educational level, the Court said, belies all suggestions that the language lacks institutional or pedagogical acceptance.

The Court was direct about the State's conduct. It described the State's response as “lackadaisical” and said the absence of a policy was being projected not as a shortcoming warranting rectification but as a ground to defend existing inertia. It held that while policy formulation is the province of the executive, the Court has a solemn constitutional duty to ensure that guarantees under Part III are not rendered illusory by executive inaction or indifference.

The Directions Issued

The Court issued two sets of directions to the State of Rajasthan.

First, the State is directed 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 NEP 2020. The State shall take necessary measures to recognise and accord due status to the Rajasthani language as a local or 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.

Second, the State is directed 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 in the judgment.

The Court stated that these directions are necessitated by the palpable vacuum operating in an area of significant constitutional importance, and that constitutional guarantees and policy declarations bearing upon access to meaningful and inclusive education cannot be permitted to remain dormant for want of executive action.

Outcome

The impugned order of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur dated 27 November 2024 in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5294 of 2021 is set aside. The appeal is allowed. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. The State of Rajasthan is directed to file a compliance affidavit by 25 September 2026. The matter is listed on 30 September 2026 for receiving the compliance affidavit.