Right To Receive Education In Mother Tongue Or Language Of Choice Is A Fundamental Right Under Article 19(1)(a): Supreme Court

"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," Supreme Court, in a landmark ruling, held that the right to receive education in one's mother tongue or a language of choice is an intrinsic facet of the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India.

A bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta observed that language is the very essence of an individual and serves as the medium through which identity finds recognition. The Court emphasized that in a society governed by law, the "accessibility of language assumes constitutional significance."

The appellants approached the Supreme Court challenging a Rajasthan High Court order which dismissed their Public Interest Litigation (PIL). They had sought directions for the inclusion of the Rajasthani language in the syllabus for the Rajasthan Eligibility Examination for Teachers (REET) 2021 and for the State to impart education to children in Rajasthani or relevant local languages. The High Court had dismissed the plea on the ground that the appellants failed to establish an enforceable legal right or a statutory duty on the part of the State.

The primary question before the Court was whether the right to receive education in one's mother tongue is a constitutionally protected right under Articles 19(1)(a) and 21A. The Court also examined the State's obligation under Article 350A and the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 to provide facilities for instruction in local or regional languages.

Language As An Existential Right And Tool For Empowerment

The Supreme Court began its analysis by reflecting on the historical and constitutional significance of language. The bench noted that language is the "enduring thread" through which culture and values are transmitted across generations. It observed that the framers of the Constitution were deeply conscious of the pivotal role of language in national integration, dedicating Part XVII (Articles 343 to 351) to govern its official use while preserving linguistic diversity.

Court Explains Significance Of Language In Nation Building

"Language 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," the Court observed.

Education Must Be Intelligible To Be Deemed 'Quality Education'

While noting that the specific relief regarding REET 2021 had become infructuous due to the passage of time, the Court refused to brush aside the broader grievance as academic. It held that the quality of education is inextricably linked to the medium of instruction. Drawing from the "Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009" (RTE Act), specifically Section 29(2)(f), the bench emphasized that instruction must be in the child's mother tongue as far as practicable.

Intelligibility As A Component Of Right To Education

The Court highlighted that instruction which cannot be grasped by students due to language barriers cannot be regarded as "quality education" in any meaningful sense. It noted that an unfamiliar medium risks "impairing foundational development and engendering a sense of alienation" in the child.

Mother Tongue Instruction As A Fundamental Right Under Article 19(1)(a)

In a significant constitutional interpretation, the bench located the right to mother-tongue instruction within Article 19(1)(a). It held that 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 Court observed that the true value of this freedom lies in the ability to understand and process information to make informed choices.

Article 19(1)(a) Encompasses Choice Of Medium

Citing the precedent in State of Karnataka v. Associated Management of English Medium Primary & Secondary Schools, the Court reaffirmed that the State cannot impose controls on the choice of medium of instruction just because it thinks a different medium would be more beneficial.

"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."

Criticism Of State's Inertia And 'Myopic Stance'

The Court expressed "serious concern" over the substantial deficit in the actual implementation of policy commitments. It rejected the State of Rajasthan's argument that only languages included in the Eighth Schedule could be taught. The bench termed this approach "lackadaisical" and a failure to translate constitutional assurances into concrete action. It noted that while Rajasthani is taught at the University level (M.A. and B.A.), it was being ignored at the school level.

Gap Between Policy And Lived Experience

"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," the bench remarked.

Mandatory Directions To The State Of Rajasthan

Setting aside the High Court's order, the Supreme Court directed the State of Rajasthan to formulate a comprehensive policy for the effective implementation of mother tongue-based education. This policy must aim to recognize Rajasthani as a local/regional language for educational purposes and facilitate its adoption as a medium of instruction, starting from the foundational stages.

Time-Bound Implementation Required

The Court further directed the State to take "affirmative and time-bound steps" to provide Rajasthani as a subject in all schools, both government and private, in a phased manner. The State has been ordered to file a compliance affidavit by September 25, 2026.

The Court concluded that constitutional guarantees bearing upon access to inclusive education cannot be permitted to remain "dormant for want of executive action." By linking mother-tongue instruction to Article 19(1)(a), the Court has elevated the pedagogical preference for local languages to a justiciable fundamental right, ensuring that education remains a "primary vehicle for the transmission of knowledge."

Date of Decision: May 12, 2026