PADAM MEHTA AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS

                 [2026] 5 S.C.R. 597 : 2026 INSC 476

                      Padam Mehta and Another
                                  v.
                    State of Rajasthan and Others
                      (Civil Appeal No. 7458 of 2026)
                                 12 May 2026
              [Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta,* JJ.]


                           Issue for Consideration
       Matter arose as regards inclusion of Rajasthani language as medium
       of instructions for education and public employment.

                                  Headnotes†
       Constitution of India – Arts.19(1)(a), 136 – Linguistic minority –
       Inclusion of the Rajasthani language in Schools – PIL by
       the appellants seeking a direction to the respondents to
       include the Rajasthani language in the examination syllabus
       for recruitment to the post of Teacher, under the Rajasthan
       Eligibility Examination for Teachers, 2021, and to impart
       education to children in the Rajasthani language or the
       relevant local language – Petition dismissed by the High Court
       holding that a writ of mandamus can be issued only upon the
       petitioners/appellants establishing an enforceable legal right
       and demonstrating a corresponding failure on the part of the
       State authorities to discharge a statutory duty – Correctness:
       Held: Primary relief as regards the inclusion of the Rajasthani
       language in the examination syllabus of the REET-2021, rendered
       infructuous since the recruitment process has been conducted
       and concluded, and attained finality long back – However, the
       issues raised touches upon broader questions of constitutional
       significance concerning the recognition of language in the
       sphere of education and public employment – Right to receive
       education in one’s mother language finds its normative basis in
       Art.19(1)(a), for the guarantee of freedom of speech and expression
       necessarily encompasses the right to receive information in a
       form that is both meaningful and comprehensible – True value
       of this freedom lies not merely in the ability to communicate, but
       in the ability to understand, internalize, and process information
       so as to make informed choices – Thus, education, being a
* Author
598                                                            [2026] 5 S.C.R.

                           Supreme Court Reports


       primary vehicle for transmission of knowledge, must, to the extent
       practicable, be imparted in a language that the child understands
       best – Instruction in the mother language, or a language of
       choice, fortifies the learner’s conceptual clarity, ensures deeper
       cognitive engagement, and secures the constitutional promise of
       meaningful access to knowledge – However, despite such clear
       policy articulation by the Central Government, there appears
       to be a substantial deficit in the actual implementation of these
       commitments by the State at the ground level – Continued
       inaction and inadequacy on the part of 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 – State submitted that
       only those languages as are enumerated in the Eighth Schedule
       to the Constitution are presently taught as subjects in Government
       Primary and Upper Primary Schools, and that, consequently, there
       exists neither any policy decision nor administrative framework
       to recognise or adopt the language in question as a medium
       of instruction or as a subject for recruitment – This approach
       cannot be regarded as satisfactory, for it reflects an utter failure
       to translate constitutional assurances into concrete action, and,
       if accepted, would risk reducing the rights recognised under the
       Constitution to a mere formality and the broader constitutional
       commitment to linguistic diversity and meaningful access to
       education – Court cannot remain a silent spectator to the stark
       dilution of rights so clearly recognised in constitutional text,
       legislative enactments, and binding precedents – 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 – 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 – State of
       Rajasthan to 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 the National Education Policy, 2020 – State to take
       necessary measures to recognise and accord due status to the
       Rajasthani language as a local/regional language for educational
[2026] 5 S.C.R.                                                             599

      Padam Mehta and Another v. State of Rajasthan and Others


     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, in a
     manner consistent with constitutional principles and pedagogical
     requirements – State to take affirmative and time-bound steps
     towards introducing and providing Rajasthani as a subject in all
     schools, government and private, in a phased and progressive
     manner consistent with the constitutional and policy framework.
     [Paras 31, 32, 42, 44-52]
     Constitution of India – Part XVII, Arts. 343 to 351 – Language –
     Role and significance of, in the context of education and
     constitutional guarantees – Constitutional recognition of
     the importance of the mother tongue in early education –
     Explained. [Paras 10-19]

                              Case Law Cited
     State of U.P. & Anr. v. Anand Kumar Yadav & Ors. [2017] 10 SCR
     428 : (2018) 13 SCC 560; Devesh Sharma v. Union of India & Ors.
     [2023] 11 SCR 167 : (2023) 18 SCC 339; English Medium Students
     Parents Assn. v. State of Karnataka & Ors. [1993] Supp. 3 SCR
     934 : (1994) 1 SCC 550; State of Karnataka & Anr. v. Associated
     Management of English Medium Primary & Secondary Schools &
     Ors. [2014] 5 SCR 1104 : (2014) 9 SCC 485 – referred to.

                                List of Acts
     Constitution of India; Constitution (Seventh Amendment) Act, 1956;
     Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009.

                             List of Keywords
     Rajasthan Eligibility Examination for Teachers, 2021; National Policy
     on Education, 1968; National Education Policy, 2020; Inclusion
     of Rajasthani language as medium of instructions for education;
     Linguistic minority; Inclusion of Rajasthani language in Schools;
     Examination syllabus for recruitment to the post of Teacher,
     under the Rajasthan Eligibility Examination for Teachers, 2021;
     Impart education to children in Rajasthani language or relevant
     local language; Establish enforceable legal right; Statutory duty;
     Role and significance of Language in the context of education
     and constitutional guarantees; Constitutional recognition of the
     importance of mother tongue in early education.
600                                                            [2026] 5 S.C.R.

                                     Supreme Court Reports


                                         Case Arising From
       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 7458 of 2026
       From the Judgment and Order dated 27.11.2024 of the High Court
       of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur in DBCWP No. 5294 of 2021

                                    Appearances for Parties
       Advs. for the Appellant(s):
       Dr. Manish Singhvi, Sr. Adv., Apurv Singhvi, Ms. Shalini Haldar,
       Jitesh Saluja, D. K. Devesh.
       Advs. for the Respondent(s):
       Shiv Mangal Sharma, A.A.G., Ms. Nidhi Jaswal, Ms. Sonali Gaur,
       Ajay Singh.

                       Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                                   Judgment

       Mehta, J.

1.     Heard.
2.     Leave granted.
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. It 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.
4.     In light of the foregoing reflection, which underscores the fundamental
       significance of language as the most powerful medium of
       comprehension and meaningful participation, we shall now proceed
       to examine the present controversy.
5.     The appellants have approached this Court by way of the instant
       appeal, under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, 19501, for


1    Hereinafter, referred to as “Constitution”.
[2026] 5 S.C.R.                                                          601

        Padam Mehta and Another v. State of Rajasthan and Others


       assailing the impugned final order dated 27th November, 2024 passed
       by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur2 in D.B. Civil
       Writ Petition No. 5294 of 2021 whereby the High Court dismissed
       the Public Interest Litigation filed by the appellants.
6.     The appellants, by way of the aforesaid Public Interest Litigation, had
       approached the High Court seeking a direction to the respondents
       to include the 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, 20213.
       The appellants also sought a direction to the respondents to impart
       education to children in the Rajasthani language or the relevant
       local language.
7.     The High Court dismissed the petition on the premise that a writ
       of mandamus can be issued only upon the petitioners/appellants
       establishing an enforceable legal right and demonstrating a
       corresponding failure on the part of the State authorities to discharge
       a statutory duty.
8.     Being aggrieved, the appellants are before this Court by way of the
       present appeal by special leave.
9.     Before adverting to the merits of the controversy, it would be apposite
       to briefly take note of certain foundational aspects pertaining to
       the role and significance of language, particularly in the context of
       education and constitutional guarantees, so as to place the issues
       arising in the present appeal in their true and wholesome perspective.

       HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
10. Language has existed in one form or other since times immemorial.
    It has served as the enduring thread through which successive
    generations have transmitted culture, knowledge, and values from
    one generation to the next.
11. The Constituent Assembly was deeply conscious of the pivotal role
    that language plays in shaping the unity and identity of a nation. The
    debates of the Assembly reflect an acute awareness of the unifying
    potential of language and its capacity to bind together the diverse


2    Hereinafter, referred to as “High Court”.
3    Hereinafter, referred to as “REET, 2021”.
602                                                         [2026] 5 S.C.R.

                                 Supreme Court Reports


       cultural fabric of India, particularly in the context of education and
       nation-building.
12. The framers of the Constitution devoted an entire Part to the subject
    of language, being fully conscious of its profound bearing on national
    integration, cultural identity, and access to education and justice.
    Part XVII of the Constitution (Articles 343 to 351) delineates the
    constitutional framework governing the official languages of the Union
    and the States, while at the same time preserving and promoting
    India’s rich linguistic diversity.
13. The Constitution, in its original form, recognized fourteen languages
    in the Eighth Schedule, reflecting the linguistic diversity of the newly
    independent nation. However, pursuant to successive constitutional
    amendments, the list of languages in the Eighth Schedule has been
    progressively expanded. As it stands today, the Eighth Schedule
    comprises twenty-two languages, embodying the constitutional
    recognition of India’s plural linguistic heritage and its commitment
    to fostering unity in diversity.
14. In the deliberations of the Constituent Assembly of India, the question
    of language was not confined to matters of official usage, but extended
    to concerns of far-reaching import, including the use of the mother
    tongue at the primary stage of education, an issue of enduring
    relevance in every multilingual society characterised by substantial
    linguistic diversity, as well as the determination of the medium of
    instruction in universities and other institutions of higher learning.
15. The significance accorded to these concerns did not remain at the
    level of principle alone but found concrete constitutional expression
    in the years that followed. By virtue of the Seventh Amendment4
    to the Constitution, Article 350A came to be incorporated into the
    Constitution, with the avowed object of ensuring that the States
    shall provide adequate facilities for instruction in the mother tongue
    at the primary stage of education for children belonging to linguistic
    minority groups.
16. The constitutional recognition of the importance of the mother tongue
    in early education was further reinforced by subsequent policy
    developments at the national level, reflecting a consistent and evolving


4   Constitution (Seventh Amendment) Act, 1956, S. 21.
[2026] 5 S.C.R.                                                         603

       Padam Mehta and Another v. State of Rajasthan and Others


     consensus on the issue. In this regard, the Education Commission
     (1964-66), famously known as D.S. Kothari Commission, was
     constituted by the Government of India to undertake a comprehensive
     review of the state of education and to recommend measures for its
     comprehensive reform. The Commission placed strong emphasis on
     the centrality of regional languages within the educational system
     and recommended a three-language formula, under which the first
     language of instruction would ordinarily be the mother tongue or the
     regional language. It further underscored that the regional language
     ought to serve as the medium of education not only at the school
     level but should extend to higher stages of learning as well. The
     report of the Commission was subsequently adopted in the National
     Policy on Education, 1968, and its core recommendations came to
     be reiterated in the subsequent iterations of the National Policy on
     Education in 1986 and 1992, thereby lending enduring policy support
     to the constitutional vision.
17. In furtherance of the objective of securing inclusive and equitable
    education for all children between the age of six and fourteen years,
    Parliament enacted the pathbreaking statute i.e., the Right of Children
    to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 20095, with a view to guarantee
    every child the right to full-time elementary education of satisfactory
    and equitable quality. Significantly, recognising the foundational role
    of the mother tongue in facilitating meaningful learning, the legislature
    incorporated Section 29(2)(f) therein, mandating that the academic
    authority, while formulating the curriculum and evaluation procedures,
    shall take into consideration that the medium of instruction shall, as
    far as practicable, be in the child’s mother tongue, an expression
    of legislative intent whose full and faithful operationalisation would
    fall for consideration at a later stage. Section 29(2)(f) is extracted
    below for ease of reference:-
             “29. Curriculum and evaluation procedure.—
             (1) The curriculum and the evaluation procedure for
             elementary education shall be laid down by an academic
             authority to be specified by the appropriate Government,
             by notification.



5   Hereinafter, referred to as “RTE Act, 2009”.
604                                                            [2026] 5 S.C.R.

                                   Supreme Court Reports


             (2) The academic authority, while laying down the
             curriculum and the evaluation procedure under sub-section
             (1), shall take into consideration the following, namely:—
             (a) conformity with the values enshrined in the Constitution;
             (b) all round development of the child;
             (c) building up child’s knowledge, potentiality and talent;
             (d) development of physical and mental abilities to the
             fullest extent;
             (e) learning through activities, discovery and exploration
             in a child friendly and child-centered manner;
             (f) medium of instructions shall, as far as practicable,
             be in child’s mother tongue;
             (g) making the child free of fear, trauma and anxiety and
             helping the child to express views freely;
             (h) comprehensive and continuous evaluation of child’s
             understanding of knowledge and his or her ability to apply
             the same.”
                                                      (Emphasis supplied)

18. This legislative mandate has been further strengthened and elaborated
    in contemporary policy frameworks. The National Education Policy,
    20206, which seeks to comprehensively reform the education system
    in the country, places marked emphasis on the primacy of the home,
    local, and regional language in early education. It acknowledges, on a
    considered pedagogical basis, that young children grasp and internalise
    complex concepts with greater ease when instructed in their mother
    tongue. Accordingly, the Policy recommends that, wherever feasible,
    the medium of instruction up to at least Grade V, and preferably up to
    Grade VIII and beyond, ought to be the home or regional language,
    while also envisaging its continued use as a subject of instruction
    thereafter. Notably, this framework is intended to be uniformly adhered
    to by both public and private educational institutions, thereby embedding
    linguistic inclusivity at the core of the instructional paradigm.


6   Hereinafter, referred to as “NEP, 2020”.
[2026] 5 S.C.R.                                                           605

      Padam Mehta and Another v. State of Rajasthan and Others


19. NEP, 2020 further contemplates the deployment of technology as
    an enabling instrument to bridge linguistic barriers, so as to facilitate
    more effective communication between teachers and students and
    to enhance comprehension by allowing instruction and learning to
    take place in the child’s home or regional language, in furtherance of
    the overarching objective of mother tongue-based education. Such
    technological adaptations are intended to aid teachers in instructional
    delivery and assist students in comprehending complex concepts in
    their home or regional language and are to be piloted and implemented
    in a manner that strengthens the overarching objective of imparting
    instructions in mother-tongue.

     SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS
20. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that
    Rajasthani speaking population squarely falls within the ambit of a
    “linguistic minority” for the purposes of Article 350A of the Constitution.
    The expression “linguistic minority” is not to be understood in a narrow
    or rigid sense, but in relation to the dominant or official language
    of the State. In the State of Rajasthan, where Hindi is the principal
    official language, Rajasthani, being a distinct mother tongue with its
    own rich linguistic identity and cultural heritage, clearly constitutes a
    minority language for the purposes of Article 350A of the Constitution.
21. Learned counsel submitted that the right to choose the medium of
    instruction, particularly the entitlement to receive education in one’s
    mother tongue, is implicit in Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution,
    inasmuch as the freedom of speech and expression encompasses the
    right to receive and comprehend information in a meaningful manner.
    When read in conjunction with Article 21A of the Constitution, this
    forms a coherent interlinked constitutional guarantee, obligating the
    State to ensure that education is not merely formally imparted, but
    is intelligible and effective in substance, which necessarily entails
    instruction in a language understood by the child.
22. It was submitted that the State of Rajasthan has engaged in a form
    of hostile and invidious discrimination, inasmuch as languages such
    as Gujarati, Punjabi, and Sindhi are being included in the course
    curriculums prevailing in the schools, while Rajasthani stands
    conspicuously excluded, notwithstanding its widespread use and
    deep-rooted linguistic identity within the State. Such differential
606                                                        [2026] 5 S.C.R.

                          Supreme Court Reports


       treatment, in the absence of any intelligible differentia or rational
       nexus with the object sought to be achieved, is manifestly arbitrary
       and falls foul of the equality mandate enshrined in Article 14 of the
       Constitution.
23. Learned counsel further submitted that the NEP, 2020, lends further
    reinforcement to this position by recognising that young children
    are able to grasp even complex concepts with greater ease when
    taught in their home language, and accordingly recommends that
    the medium of instruction should, as far as practicable, be the
    home language or mother tongue, at least until Grades I to V and
    VI to VIII.
24. On these grounds, learned counsel for the appellants, implored the
    Court to set aside the impugned order; allow the appeal and issue
    appropriate directions in terms of the reliefs prayed for.

       SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS
25. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted
    that education is presently imparted, and recruitment to teaching
    positions undertaken, only in respect of those languages which are
    formally recognised in the Eighth Schedule to the Constitution. It was
    contended that, as on date, Rajasthani has not been included in the
    said Schedule and hence, no policy decision has been taken, nor
    does any administrative framework presently exist, for its adoption
    either as a medium of instruction or a compulsory subject.
26. Learned counsel submitted that the reliance placed by the appellants
    on Article 350A of the Constitution is misconceived and misplaced,
    as speakers of Rajasthani language do not constitute a linguistic
    minority within the State of Rajasthan. It was further urged that
    Article 350A is merely directory in character, inasmuch as it casts an
    obligation upon the State only to endeavour to provide facilities for
    instruction in the mother tongue and does not give rise to justiciable
    or enforceable rights capable of being enforced by way of a writ of
    mandamus.
27. It was further submitted that the NEP, 2020 is merely an executive
    policy statement without statutory force and does not, by itself,
    create legally enforceable rights or corresponding duties. While the
    Policy recommends the use of the mother tongue as the medium of
    instruction, it does not mandate the same, nor does it circumscribe
[2026] 5 S.C.R.                                                      607

      Padam Mehta and Another v. State of Rajasthan and Others


     the State’s administrative/executive discretion in the formulation of
     curricula or the structuring of recruitment syllabi.
28. In light of the submissions noted hereinabove, learned counsel
    appearing for the respondents urged that the present appeal, being
    devoid of merit, deserves to be dismissed.

     ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION
29. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions
    advanced at bar and have carefully gone through the impugned
    order and the material placed on record.
30. At the outset, it is necessary to note that the primary relief sought
    by the appellants, namely, the inclusion of the Rajasthani language
    in the examination syllabus for both levels, Classes I to V and
    Classes VI to VIII, of the REET-2021, does not survive for efficacious
    consideration at this stage. The said examination pertained to a
    recruitment process which has since been conducted and concluded,
    and the relief, in its present form, appears to have been rendered
    infructuous by efflux of time. This Court, therefore, finds that no
    effective direction can now be issued qua the said examination without
    unsettling a recruitment process that has attained finality long back.
31. However, the matter does not rest there. The issues raised by the
    appellants transcend the confines of the particular examination
    in question and touch upon broader questions of constitutional
    significance concerning the recognition of language in the sphere
    of education and public employment. To that extent, the grievance
    projected cannot be brushed aside as wholly academic and would
    require consideration in the larger context delineated hereinbelow.
32. Needless to state, the question of language in education transcends
    the confines of administrative convenience or pedagogical preference;
    it strikes at the very core of inclusivity, identity, and meaningful
    access to the learning process. Any adjudication in this domain must,
    therefore, proceed with due circumspection, bearing in mind the
    delicate balance between the domain of policy formulation entrusted
    to the State and the constitutional mandate of ensuring equality of
    opportunity alongside the preservation of linguistic diversity.
33. It cannot be gainsaid that education is the transformative force,
    capable of uplifting an individual from adverse circumstances and
608                                                            [2026] 5 S.C.R.

                           Supreme Court Reports


       elevate him to the highest realms of personal, social, and economic
       development. It is not merely a means of acquiring knowledge and
       communication, but a tool for empowerment, enabling individuals
       to overcome systemic disadvantages, break cycles of poverty, and
       contribute meaningfully to the society. The influence of education
       extends beyond the individual, shaping families and successive
       generations by fostering awareness, critical thinking, and informed
       decision making. An educated person is thus equipped not only
       with intellectual acumen but also with the ethical, civic, and social
       consciousness necessary to participate effectively in a democratic
       society, uphold constitutional values, and contribute to nation-building.
34. Recognizing this, the Constitution of India, through Articles 21, 21A,
    41, 45, 51A(k) and 350A, places a clear imprimatur on the right to
    education and the corresponding obligation of the State to ensure
    accessible, equitable, and quality education. These provisions, read
    harmoniously, affirm that education is not merely a policy objective,
    but a constitutional entitlement coupled with a public duty, integral
    to both individual dignity and the collective progress of the nation.
35. Significantly, the constitutional framework also recognises that the
    quality of education is inextricably linked to the medium through
    which it is imparted, reflecting the principle that education must be
    intelligible and accessible to the learner. Instruction that cannot be
    adequately grasped by the students due to language barriers or
    unfamiliar mediums of instruction cannot, in any meaningful sense,
    be regarded as quality education, for the very purpose of education
    is to equip the learner with knowledge, understanding, and skills. The
    constitutional mandate, thus, impels the State to adopt measures
    that facilitate effective learning through the use of child’s chosen
    language, or mother tongue, thereby fulfilling both the spirit and
    the letter of the Constitution in delivering education that is truly
    substantive, inclusive, and empowering.
36. This Court has, on more than one occasion, underscored these
    principles. In State of U.P. & Anr. v. Anand Kumar Yadav & Ors.7,
    while emphasizing the importance of quality education, the Court
    observed as follows:-



7   (2018) 13 SCC 560.
[2026] 5 S.C.R.                                                          609

      Padam Mehta and Another v. State of Rajasthan and Others


            “23. At the outset, we may note that fundamental right
            to free and compulsory education is one of the most
            important rights as without education one may never
            know his other rights. It goes without saying that right
            to education is right to quality education. Concern for
            unsatisfactory quality of education has been expressed
            by this Court on several occasions…”
37. Parliament, being alive to the pivotal role of education as an instrument
    of social transformation and substantive equality, enacted RTE Act,
    2009 with the avowed objective of ensuring free and compulsory
    elementary education of satisfactory quality to all children, particularly
    those belonging to disadvantaged and weaker sections of society.
    The enactment serves to operationalise the constitutional mandate
    flowing from Articles 21A, 45, and 51A(k) of the Constitution, and is
    designed to dismantle barriers to access, foster inclusivity, and secure
    the provision of education that is not merely formal but meaningful,
    effective, and equitable in substance.
38. This Court in Devesh Sharma v. Union of India & Ors.8, highlighted
    the transformative purpose of RTE Act, 2009 and the broad remedial
    purpose it seeks to achieve, and observed as follows:-
            “18. In order to fulfil the above mandate the Right to
            Education Act, 2009, was passed by Parliament on 20-8-
            2009, which became effective from 1-4-2010. The Object
            and Reasons of the Act declared loud and clear that
            what the Act seeks to achieve is not merely “free”
            and “compulsory” elementary education, but equally
            important would be the “Quality” of this education!
            The Preamble to the Act states “that every child has a
            right to be provided full-time elementary education of
            satisfactory and equitable “quality” in a formal school
            which satisfies certain essential norms and standards”.
            19. When the validity of the Act was challenged before
            this Court [In Society for Unaided Private Schools of
            Rajasthan v. Union of India, (2012) 6 SCC 1 : 4 SCEC
            453], this Court, while upholding its validity emphasised
            that the Act, was intended not only to impart “free” and


8   (2023) 18 SCC 339.
610                                                         [2026] 5 S.C.R.

                        Supreme Court Reports


          “compulsory” education to children, but the purpose was
          also to impart “quality” education!
               “8. … The provisions of this Act are intended not only
               to guarantee right to free and compulsory education
               to children, but it also envisages imparting of “quality”
               education by providing required infrastructure and
               compliance with specified norms and standards in
               the schools.” [See p. 28, para 8, Society for Unaided
               Private Schools of Rajasthan v. Union of India [Society
               for Unaided Private Schools of Rajasthan v. Union
               of India, (2012) 6 SCC 1 : 4 SCEC 453]
          20. As we can see, the purpose behind bringing
          this pathbreaking legislation was not to complete
          the formality of “free and compulsory” elementary
          education for children, but to make a qualitative
          difference in elementary education and to impart it in a
          meaningful manner. Provisions like “Right to be admitted
          in a neighbourhood school” [ Section 3 of the Right to
          Education Act, 2009.], “No denial of admission” [ Section
          15 of the Right to Education Act, 2009.] and “Prohibition
          of physical punishment and mental harassment” [ Section
          17 of the Right to Education Act, 2009.], are some of the
          heartwarming provisions of the Act.
          21. The Act sets down certain norms and standards
          which have to be followed in elementary schools, and
          this is with the purpose of providing a meaningful and
          “quality” education…”
                                                (Emphasis Supplied)

39. Section 29(2)(f) of the RTE Act, 2009, is a key provision aimed at
    securing the delivery of quality education in a real and substantive
    sense. Proceeding on the well-established pedagogical premise that
    instruction imparted in the child’s mother tongue or regional language
    significantly enhances comprehension and learning outcomes, the
    provision intends to obviate situations where students are unable
    to meaningfully grasp foundational concepts at the very threshold.
    Education imparted in a language unfamiliar to the learner not only
    impedes effective understanding but also risks impairing foundational
[2026] 5 S.C.R.                                                             611

      Padam Mehta and Another v. State of Rajasthan and Others


     development and engendering a sense of alienation or apprehension in
     the child, thereby defeating the very purpose of elementary education.
     By mandating that curricular design and evaluation frameworks duly
     account for the medium of instruction, Section 29(2)(f) reinforces the
     principle that quality education must be intelligible, inclusive, and
     conducive to the holistic development of the child.
40. It is also pertinent to note that the Central Government has, in
    furtherance of the constitutional mandate, formulated the National
    Education Policy, 2020, which, as discussed above, accords primacy
    to the use of the mother tongue, home language, local language or
    regional language as the medium of instruction, particularly at the
    foundational and preparatory stages of schooling. The Policy does not
    merely reiterate a pedagogical preference but reflects a considered
    legislative policy stance acknowledging that education imparted in
    a language familiar to the child substantially enhances conceptual
    clarity, cognitive development, and long-term learning outcomes. In
    that sense, NEP, 2020 serves to reinforce, at the executive level,
    the constitutional vision underlying Articles 19(1)(a), 21, 21A, 41, 45,
    51A(k) and 350A, all of which cumulatively stress upon the imperative
    of ensuring education that is accessible, inclusive, and meaningful.
41. This position has also received judicial affirmation. In English
    Medium Students Parents Assn. v. State of Karnataka & Ors.9,
    this Court, while acknowledging the pivotal role played by mother-
    tongue instruction in the intellectual and emotional development of a
    child, underscored the constitutional obligation of the State to actively
    promote the language of the region. The Court emphasised that the
    mother tongue serves not merely as a medium of communication
    but also as a vital instrument for cognitive growth, cultural continuity
    and meaningful participation in the educational process and observed
    as follows:-
            “20. All educational experts are uniformly of the opinion that
            pupils should begin their schooling through the medium
            of their mother tongue. There is great reason and justice
            behind this. Where the tender minds of the children are
            subject to an alien medium the learning process becomes
            unnatural. It inflicts a cruel strain on the children which


9   (1994) 1 SCC 550.
612                                                       [2026] 5 S.C.R.

                        Supreme Court Reports


          makes the entire transaction mechanical. Besides, the
          educational process becomes artificial and torturous. The
          basic knowledge can easily be garnered through the mother
          tongue. The introduction of a foreign language tends to
          threaten to atrophy the development of mother tongue.
          When the pupil comes of age and reaches the Vth standard
          level, the second language is introduced. The child who
          has not taken Kannada as a first language is required to
          take it as a second language. At the secondary stage the
          three language formula is introduced. However, in cases
          of non-Kannada speaking students grace marks up to
          15 are awarded. Certainly, it cannot be contended that
          a student studying in a school from Karnataka need not
          know the regional language. It should be the endeavour
          of every State to promote the regional language of
          that State. In fact, the Government of Karnataka has
          done commendably well in passing this GO Therefore, to
          contend that the imposition of study of Kannada throws
          an undue burden on the students is untenable. Again to
          quote Mahatma Gandhi:
          “The medium of instruction should be altered at once and
          at any cost, the provincial languages being given their
          rightful place. I would prefer temporary chaos in higher
          education to the criminal waste that is daily accumulating.”
                                               (Emphasis Supplied)
42. At a more fundamental level, the right to receive education in one’s
    mother language finds its normative basis in Article 19(1)(a) of the
    Constitution, for 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 true value of this
    freedom lies not merely in the ability to communicate, but in the
    ability to understand, internalize, and process information so as to
    make informed choices. Viewed through this constitutional lens, it
    follows that education, being a primary vehicle for transmission of
    knowledge, must, to the extent practicable, be imparted in a language
    that the child understands best. Instruction in the mother language,
    or a language of choice, fortifies the learner’s conceptual clarity,
    ensures deeper cognitive engagement, and secures the constitutional
[2026] 5 S.C.R.                                                                613

       Padam Mehta and Another v. State of Rajasthan and Others


      promise of meaningful access to knowledge.
43. This position stands authoritatively affirmed by this Court in State
    of Karnataka & Anr. v. Associated Management of English
    Medium Primary & Secondary Schools & Ors.10, wherein, upon
    an exhaustive analysis of the constitutional guarantee under Article
    19(1)(a) of the Constitution, it was unequivocally affirmed that the
    said provision encompasses the freedom of a child to receive primary
    education in a language of his or her choice. The Court held as
    follows:-
             “39. This Court also went into the question whether
             receiving information or education by a citizen was part of
             his right to freedom of speech and expression in Ministry
             of Information & Broadcasting, Govt. of India v. Cricket
             Assn. of Bengal [(1995) 2 SCC 161] and held that the right
             to freedom of speech and expression in Article 19(1)(a)
             of the Constitution will not only include the right to impart
             information but also the right to receive information. In
             his opinion, P.B. Sawant, J. observed that the right to
             freedom of speech and expression also includes the right
             to educate, to inform and to entertain and also the right
             to be educated, informed and entertained.
             40. In line with the earlier decisions of this Court, we are of
             the view that the right to freedom of speech and expression
             under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution includes the
             freedom of a child to be educated at the primary stage
             of school in a language of the choice of the child and the
             State cannot impose controls on such choice just because
             it thinks that it will be more beneficial for the child if he is
             taught in the primary stage of school in his mother tongue.
             We, therefore, hold that 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. We cannot accept the submission of the
             learned Advocate General that the right to freedom
             of speech and expression in Article 19(1)(a) of the


10   (2014) 9 SCC 485.
614                                                             [2026] 5 S.C.R.

                           Supreme Court Reports


           Constitution does not include the right of a child or
           on his behalf his parent or guardian, to choose the
           medium of instruction at the stage of primary school.”
                                                    (Emphasis Supplied)

44. However, what is a matter of serious concern is that despite such clear
    policy articulation by the Central Government, there appears to be a
    substantial deficit in the actual implementation of these commitments
    by the State at the ground level. Little demonstrable progress has been
    made in taking concrete and affirmative steps to ensure that students
    are effectively imparted instruction in the language of their choice,
    or at the very least, in the regional language, as constitutionally and
    legally mandated. This Court has categorically held that the medium
    of instruction at the primary level must subserve the objective of
    genuine comprehension and has further located this entitlement within
    the ambit of Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, recognising it as an
    intrinsic facet of the right to receive information in a form that facilitates
    understanding. Therefore, the continued inaction and inadequacy on
    the part of 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.
45. While frameworks, schemes and policies continue to be announced
    with much fanfare and panache, their absence in the lived experience
    of the child renders the entire exercise hollow. 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,
    which demands not only the articulation of high principles but their
    faithful and measurable implementation at the ground level.
46. In this backdrop, it is particularly disquieting that the State of Rajasthan
    has consciously tried to justify its continued inaction by adopting a
    myopic stance. It has been urged on behalf of the State that only
    those languages as are enumerated in the Eighth Schedule to the
    Constitution are presently taught as subjects in Government Primary
    and Upper Primary Schools, and that, consequently, there exists
    neither any policy decision nor administrative framework to recognise
    or adopt the language in question as a medium of instruction or as
    a subject for recruitment. This lackadaisical response, rather than
[2026] 5 S.C.R.                                                           615

      Padam Mehta and Another v. State of Rajasthan and Others


     meaningfully engaging with the constitutional imperative highlighted
     hereinabove, proceeds on a technical premise that effectively
     sidesteps it. The absence of a policy is thus projected not as a
     shortcoming warranting prompt rectification, but as a ground to
     defend the existing inertia. This approach cannot be regarded as
     satisfactory, for it reflects an utter failure to translate constitutional
     assurances into concrete action, and, if accepted, would risk reducing
     the rights recognised under the Constitution to a mere formality and
     the broader constitutional commitment to linguistic diversity and
     meaningful access to education.
47. Under these circumstances, this Court cannot remain a silent spectator
    to the stark dilution of rights so clearly recognised in constitutional
    text, legislative enactments, and binding precedents. While it is not the
    province of this Court to enter upon the arena of policy formulation,
    it is nonetheless its solemn constitutional duty to ensure that the
    guarantees enshrined in Part III of the Constitution are not rendered
    illusory by executive inaction or indifference. 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. 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.
48. 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.
49. In light of the aforesaid discussion and having regard to the
    constitutional scheme, the legislative framework, and the policy
    directives noticed hereinabove, we deem it appropriate to direct the
    State of Rajasthan to 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 the National Education Policy, 2020. The State shall
    take necessary measures to recognise and accord due status to the
    Rajasthani language as a local/regional language for educational
    purposes and to progressively facilitate its adoption as a medium
616                                                          [2026] 5 S.C.R.

                               Supreme Court Reports


       of instruction, initially at the foundational and preparatory stages of
       schooling and progressively at higher levels, in a manner consistent
       with constitutional principles and pedagogical requirements.
50. We may note that Rajasthani is presently being taught as a subject in
    Universities across the State of Rajasthan, including Jai Narain Vyas
    University, Jodhpur (offering M.A. in Rajasthani Language), Maharaja
    Ganga Singh University, Bikaner (offering M.A. in Rajasthani),
    University of Rajasthan, Jaipur (offering B.A. and M.A. in Rajasthani
    Language). Yet, the procrastinating stand consistently taken by the
    State is that only those languages included in the Eighth Schedule
    to the Constitution are being taught as additional languages in
    Government Primary and Upper Primary Schools. Such a position,
    in our considered view, 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. Accordingly, we also direct the State
    to take affirmative and time-bound steps towards introducing and
    providing Rajasthani as a subject in all schools, government and
    private, in a phased and progressive manner consistent with the
    constitutional and policy framework discussed hereinabove.
51. The aforesaid directions are necessitated by the palpable vacuum
    presently operating in an area of significant constitutional importance.
    Constitutional guarantees and policy declarations, particularly those
    bearing upon access to meaningful and inclusive education, cannot
    be permitted to remain dormant for want of executive action.
52. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed.
53. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
54. The State of Rajasthan shall file a compliance affidavit by
    25th September, 2026. List on 30th September, 2026 for receiving
    the compliance affidavit.

       Result of the case: Appeal allowed.
                            List for receiving the compliance affidavit.




       †
           Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain