The Supreme Court on Monday (13 July)  examined the Central Board of Secondary Education's (CBSE) three-language scheme, questioning the use of the term "native" in its language policy and raising broader issues about how languages should be classified in India's education system.

Hearing the matter, a bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and comprising Justice Joymalya Bagchi observed that the expression "native" assumes significance because it is not a term recognised either in the Constitution or in statutory law.

The CBSE's revised three-language scheme requires Class 9 students to study at least two languages "native to India".

Reports also indicate that a circular issued by the CBSE on July 10 distinguishes between 'Bharatiya bhashas' such as Hindi, Sanskrit, Tamil, Telugu and Punjabi, and languages categorised as "non-native".

“What does this word ‘native’ mean? Can it be understood as indigenous Indian language,” Justice Bagchi asked, according to a report in The Hindu.

The judge also noted that expressions commonly used in legal and constitutional contexts include "mother tongue", "regional language" and "Indian language", rather than "native".

Appearing for parents and students challenging aspects of the policy, senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan argued that schools lacked the infrastructure needed to implement the language mandate effectively.

The issue has sparked concern among parents and students, particularly those who had opted to study a foreign language other than English until Class 8 and may now have to switch to languages covered under the revised framework.

The Supreme Court's observations have also brought renewed attention to the interpretation of the CBSE's language policy and the practical challenges involved in implementing it across schools.