11 May 2026 Legal Updates

Supreme Court Directs Rajasthan To Introduce Rajasthani Language In Schools, Emphasises Mother-Tongue Education

Supreme Court held that States cannot ignore constitutional obligations relating to mother-tongue education and directed Rajasthan to progressively introduce Rajasthani language in all government and private schools.

Case Details

(a) Case Title:

• Padam Mehta & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

(b) Court:

• Supreme Court of India

(c) Bench:

• Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta

Facts of the Case

• The petitioners approached the Supreme Court seeking directions to the Rajasthan Government to introduce the Rajasthani language in schools and include it in the Rajasthan Eligibility Examination for Teachers (REET) syllabus.
• The petitioners argued that although Rajasthani is spoken by nearly 4.36 crore people in Rajasthan, the State had failed to recognize it adequately in school education. They contended that despite the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 emphasizing mother-tongue education, Rajasthan had not taken meaningful steps to introduce Rajasthani in schools.
• Earlier, the Rajasthan High Court had dismissed the plea, observing that matters relating to educational policy fall within the executive domain and courts cannot issue directions to frame such policies.
• Aggrieved by this refusal, the petitioners approached the Supreme Court.

Issues Raised

• Whether the State of Rajasthan can avoid introducing Rajasthani language in schools despite constitutional and policy mandates relating to mother-tongue education?
• Whether the judiciary can issue directions in educational policy matters when constitutional rights are affected?
• Whether the failure to provide education in the mother tongue violates constitutional principles and educational rights?
• Whether the State is obligated to progressively facilitate regional languages in school education?

Contentions of the Petitioners

The petitioners argued that:

• Rajasthani is widely spoken across Rajasthan and has cultural, historical and linguistic significance.
• Around 4.36 crore people speak Rajasthani according to Census data.
• The State’s refusal to introduce Rajasthani in schools violates:
  - Constitutional principles,
  - Linguistic rights,
  - Educational rights.
• The National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 strongly recommends:
  - Mother-tongue-based education,
  - Regional language instruction at foundational stages.
• Rajasthani is already taught in universities, proving:
  - Institutional recognition,
  - Pedagogical acceptance,
  - Academic legitimacy.
• Restricting school education only to languages included in the Eighth Schedule is arbitrary and unreasonable.
• Courts should intervene because prolonged executive inaction is defeating constitutional goals.

Contentions of the Respondents (State of Rajasthan)

The State argued that:

• Educational policy decisions fall within the executive domain.
• Only languages included in the Eighth Schedule are being taught as additional languages in government schools.
• The Court should avoid interfering in policy formulation.
• Decisions regarding curriculum, language policy and medium of instruction are administrative matters requiring expert consideration.

Court’s Reasoning & Key Findings

A. Constitutional Duty Towards Mother-Tongue Education

The Supreme Court strongly emphasized that: Mother-tongue education is a constitutional goal.

The Court observed that: Once the Union Government itself recognizes the importance of education in local languages through:

• legislative measures,
• educational policies,
• NEP 2020,
• the States also have a corresponding constitutional obligation to act.

The Court stated:“Constitutional rights once recognized must be translated into tangible outcomes.”

B. State Cannot Remain Passive

• The Court criticized Rajasthan’s prolonged inaction and termed it a: “Palpable vacuum.”
• The Bench held that:Executive indifference cannot make constitutional rights meaningless.
• The Court observed:
• “This Court cannot remain silent spectator to the stark dilution of rights…”

C. Rajasthani Has Institutional Acceptance

A very important finding of the Court was: Rajasthani is already being taught in universities across Rajasthan.

Therefore: The State cannot argue that the language lacks:

• academic recognition,
• institutional legitimacy,
• pedagogical feasibility.

The Court called the State’s stand: “Pedantic.”

Meaning:

• overly technical,
• rigid,
• unreasonable.

D. Educational Policy Is Executive Domain — But Courts Can Intervene

The Court acknowledged: Policy formulation primarily belongs to the executive.

However: Courts can intervene when constitutional rights are frustrated through executive inaction.

Thus:

• While courts cannot themselves frame policy,
• they can direct the State to fulfill constitutional obligations.

This is an important constitutional balance.

E. NEP 2020 Supports Regional & Mother-Tongue Education

The Court relied heavily on: National Education Policy (NEP) 2020.

NEP 2020 promotes:

• teaching in mother tongue,
• regional language instruction,
• foundational education in local languages.

The Court said States cannot ignore this framework.

F. Phased & Progressive Implementation

The Court did not direct immediate blanket implementation.

Instead, it ordered: phased, progressive, structured introduction of Rajasthani language.

This shows judicial balancing between:

• constitutional rights,
• practical implementation concerns.

Constitutional & Legal Provisions

1. Article 21A – Right To Education

Article 21A guarantees: Free and compulsory education for children aged 6–14 years.

Though Article 21A does not explicitly mention language,
the Court connected it with: meaningful and accessible education.

Education becomes more effective when imparted in:

• mother tongue,
• local language.

2. Article 29 – Protection Of Cultural & Linguistic Rights

Article 29 protects: linguistic identity, cultural heritage, language preservation.

Rajasthani speakers can claim protection of their linguistic identity under this provision.

3. Article 350A – Instruction In Mother Tongue

• This is the MOST IMPORTANT ARTICLE in this case.
• Article 350A states: States should provide facilities for instruction in the mother tongue at the primary stage of education for children belonging to linguistic minority groups.
• This Article creates: constitutional obligation upon States.
• The Supreme Court relied heavily on this constitutional philosophy.

4. Directive Principles & Cultural Preservation

• Though not directly enforceable, the Constitution encourages: preservation of regional languages,
• cultural diversity,
• inclusive education.

5. National Education Policy (NEP) 2020

NEP 2020 strongly recommends:

• mother tongue as medium of instruction till at least Grade 5,
• preferably till Grade 8.

Purpose: Better cognitive development, improved comprehension, cultural connection.

Final Verdict

The Supreme Court: Directed the Rajasthan Government to formulate a comprehensive policy regarding Rajasthani language education.

Ordered the State to:

• introduce Rajasthani as a subject in all government and private schools,
• progressively facilitate its use as medium of instruction,
• begin implementation at foundational and preparatory stages.

Directed phased and time-bound implementation.