Observing that quality of education is inextricably linked to the language in which it is imparted, the Supreme Court on Tuesday (May 12, 2026) directed the Rajasthan government to formulate a policy for introducing Rajasthani as a medium of instruction in schools and colleges across the State.

“The State shall take necessary measures to recognise and accord due status to the Rajasthani language as a 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,” a Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta observed.

‘Obligation to act’

Referring to the National Education Policy 2020, the Bench noted that the policy recognises that children learn better in their mother tongue and accordingly accords primacy to home, local, and regional languages in early education. It also pointed out that the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education (RTE) Act, 2009, which guarantees free and compulsory elementary education recognises the need to dismantle barriers to ensure equitable access to education.

“Once the Union itself has, through legislative measures and policy frameworks, acknowledged the necessity of imparting education in a language intelligible to the child, a corresponding obligation arises for the States to take timely, effective and purposive steps towards its realisation”, the Bench said.

The ruling came in an appeal challenging a November 27, 2024 order of the Rajasthan High Court dismissing a plea seeking introduction of Rajasthani as a medium of instruction in schools and its inclusion in the syllabus for State teacher eligibility exams.

While the Bench observed that the prayer seeking inclusion of Rajasthani in the syllabus for State teacher eligibility examinations had become infructuous since the recruitment process had already concluded, it noted that the State government had made “little demonstrable progress” in ensuring that students are taught in the regional language as constitutionally and legally mandated.

“The continued inaction and inadequacy on the part of the State Government in operationalising this mandate not only undermines statutory and policy directives but also risks infringing fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution,” the Bench said.

‘Myopic stance’

The apex court also criticised the State government’s “myopic stance” that only languages included in the Eighth Schedule to the Constitution could be incorporated into the curriculum of primary and upper-primary schools. Such an approach, it said, reflected “an utter failure to translate constitutional assurances into concrete action” and risked reducing the constitutional guarantee of meaningful access to education to a mere formality.

The judges further pointed out, contrary to the State government’s position, Rajasthani was already being taught as a subject in universities across Rajasthan.

“Such a position, in our considered view, discloses an apparent pedantic approach… this Court cannot remain a silent spectator to the stark dilution of rights so clearly recognised in constitutional text, legislative enactments, and binding precedents,” the judgment authored by Justice Mehta said.

However, the Bench clarified that while it did not intend to enter the domain of the legislature, it remained duty-bound to ensure that constitutional guarantees were not rendered “illusory” by “executive inaction or indifference”.

“A failure to discharge such obligations cannot be countenanced, for constitutional rights, once recognised, must be translated into tangible outcomes and cannot be permitted to languish as mere abstractions. In the absence of an appropriate policy framework, this Court would be failing in its constitutional duty were it to remain indifferent to the continued non-realisation of rights and obligations so clearly envisaged under the Constitution of India”, the Bench said.

The court accordingly directed the State government to file an affidavit indicating compliance with its directions by September 25 and posted the matter for further hearing on September 30.