The Supreme Court of India, in a significant constitutional ruling pronounced and has directed the State of Rajasthan to formally recognise the Rajasthani language for educational purposes and to progressively introduce it as a medium of instruction — from primary school through to higher levels — in a phased and time-bound manner.
Background and context
The case arose from a Public Interest Litigation filed before the Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur by appellants Padam Mehta and another, who sought directions to include Rajasthani language in the examination syllabus for recruitment to the post of Teacher, Grade-III (Level-I and Level-II), under the Rajasthan Eligibility Examination for Teachers, 2021 (REET 2021). They also sought directions for children to be imparted education in Rajasthani or the relevant local language.
The High Court dismissed the PIL by order dated 27 November 2024, holding that a writ of mandamus can only be issued if the petitioner establishes an enforceable legal right and demonstrates a corresponding failure by the State to discharge a statutory duty. Aggrieved, the appellants approached the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution.
The language rights framework
Justice Sandeep Mehta, writing for the Bench, opened the judgment with a resounding statement on the constitutional significance of language:
Court’s observation — paragraph 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.”
The Court traced an extensive constitutional and legislative history, noting that the framers devoted an entire Part (Part XVII, Articles 343–351) to language. The Constitution originally recognised fourteen languages in the Eighth Schedule; this has since expanded to twenty-two. Crucially, Article 350A, inserted by the Seventh Amendment, obligates States to provide facilities for instruction in the mother tongue at the primary stage for children from linguistic minority groups.
Policy frameworks cited
The Bench examined a consistent chain of national policy commitments to mother tongue-based education: the Kothari Commission (1964–66) recommended a three-language formula with the regional language as the primary medium; its recommendations were adopted in the National Policy on Education 1968 and reiterated in 1986 and 1992. The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act), under Section 29(2)(f), mandates that the medium of instruction shall, as far as practicable, be in the child’s mother tongue. Most recently, the National Education Policy, 2020 recommends the home or regional language as the medium of instruction up to at least Grade V, and preferably up to Grade VIII and beyond.
Submissions of the parties
Counsel for the appellants argued on three principal grounds. First, Rajasthani-speaking people constitute a “linguistic minority” under Article 350A since Hindi is the dominant official language of Rajasthan. Second, the right to receive education in one’s mother tongue is implicit in Article 19(1)(a) read with Article 21A — the State is obligated to ensure education is not merely formally imparted but intelligible in substance. Third, the differential treatment of Rajasthani vis-à -vis Gujarati, Punjabi and Sindhi — which are already included in school curricula — constitutes arbitrary discrimination violating Article 14.
The State of Rajasthan countered that education and teacher recruitment are conducted only for languages formally recognised in the Eighth Schedule, and since Rajasthani has not been included there, no policy or administrative framework exists for its adoption. The State further submitted that Article 350A is only directory in character and does not create justiciable rights, and that NEP 2020 is merely an executive policy without statutory force.
Analysis and findings of the court
The Court found that the primary relief — inclusion of Rajasthani in the REET 2021 syllabus — had been rendered infructuous since the examination had since concluded. However, the Bench held that the issues raised transcend the particular examination and raise questions of “broader constitutional significance” requiring consideration.
The Court held that the constitutional mandate impels the State to facilitate effective learning through the child’s mother tongue, and that “continued inaction and inadequacy” on the part of the State risks infringing fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution.
Citing State of Karnataka v. Associated Management of English Medium Primary & Secondary Schools (2014) 9 SCC 485, the Bench reaffirmed that Article 19(1)(a) encompasses the freedom of a child to receive primary education in a language of his or her choice. The Bench also relied on English Medium Students Parents Assn. v. State of Karnataka (1994) 1 SCC 550, where the Court had observed that instruction in an alien medium inflicts a “cruel strain” on children, making the entire educational transaction mechanical.
The Court was particularly critical of the State’s stance that absence of Eighth Schedule recognition justified inaction:
“Rajasthani is presently being taught as a subject in Universities across the State of Rajasthan, including Jai Narain Vyas University Jodhpur, Maharaja Ganga Singh University Bikaner, and the University of Rajasthan Jaipur. Yet, the procrastinating stand consistently taken by the State is that only those languages included in the Eighth Schedule are being taught in Government schools. Such a position 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.” (50)
“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.” (45)
Directions issued
Setting aside the impugned High Court order, the Supreme Court issued the following directions to the State of Rajasthan:
- 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.
- Recognise and accord due status to the Rajasthani language as a local/regional language for educational purposes.
- Progressively facilitate the adoption of Rajasthani as a medium of instruction, initially at the foundational and preparatory stages of schooling and progressively at higher levels, consistent with constitutional principles and pedagogical requirements.
- Take affirmative and time-bound steps towards introducing Rajasthani as a subject in all schools — government and private — in a phased and progressive manner.
- File a compliance affidavit before this Court by 25 September 2026. The matter is listed for receiving the compliance affidavit on 30 September 2026.
Significance of the ruling
This judgment represents a significant development in constitutional language rights jurisprudence. While the Court carefully avoided encroaching upon the domain of policy formulation, it articulated a clear constitutional duty on States to translate Union-level legislative and policy commitments into concrete ground-level action. The ruling also reinforces that the Eighth Schedule is not the sole basis for a language to receive educational recognition — the existing academic presence of Rajasthani at university level was itself treated as sufficient institutional acceptance.
Notably, the Court did not address the question of whether Rajasthani-speaking people constitute a “linguistic minority” under Article 350A — this issue was left open — focusing instead on the State’s positive obligation flowing from the RTE Act, NEP 2020, and the constitutional articles protecting the right to receive education in one’s mother tongue.
The judgment is reportable and will carry precedential weight for similar language rights disputes in other states with regionally dominant but nationally unrecognised languages.
Case Details:
Padam Mehta versus State of Rajasthan | 2026 INSC 476
Click HERE for full Judgment.
Lawcutor 