Padam Mehta and Anotherv.State of Rajasthan and Others

Legal Analysis: Padam Mehta and Another vs. State of Rajasthan and Others

Citation: 2026 INSC 476 (Reportable)
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta (Division Bench)
Date of Decision: May 12, 2026
Nature of Judgment: Civil Appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of India against the judgment of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur dismissing a Public Interest Litigation concerning the inclusion of the Rajasthan language in teacher recruitment examinations and as a medium of instruction.

Synopsis of the Judgment

The appellants filed a Public Interest Litigation before the Rajasthan High Court seeking directions to include the Rajasthan language in the syllabus for the Rajasthan Eligibility Examination for Teachers (REET-2021) and to impart education to children in the Rajasthan language. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that a writ of mandamus can be issued only when an enforceable legal right is established and the State has failed to discharge a statutory duty. The Supreme Court, while noting that the specific relief pertaining to the concluded REET-2021 examination had become infructuous, proceeded to address the broader constitutional issues concerning mother tongue‑based education. The Court held that the right to receive education in one’s mother tongue is protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution and is reinforced by Section 29(2)(f) of the Right to Education Act, 2009 and the National Education Policy, 2020. The Court directed the State of Rajasthan to formulate a comprehensive policy to recognise and accord due status to the Rajasthan language as a local/regional language for educational purposes, to adopt it as a medium of instruction at foundational stages, and to introduce it as a subject in all schools in a phased manner. The appeal was allowed, and the State was directed to file a compliance affidavit.

1. Basic Information of the Judgment

• Case Title: Padam Mehta and Another vs. State of Rajasthan and Others

• Civil Appeal No.: Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 1425 of 2025

• Bench: Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta (Division Bench)

• Date of Decision: May 12, 2026

• Citation: 2026 INSC 476 (Reportable)

• Appeal From: Final order dated 27.11.2024 of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5294 of 2021

2. Legal Framework

Laws and Provisions Involved

• Constitution of India, 1950: Articles 14 (equality), 19(1)(a) (freedom of speech and expression, including right to receive information/education in a language of choice), 21 (right to life), 21A (right to education), 41 (right to work, education and public assistance), 45 (provision for early childhood care and education), 51A(k) (fundamental duty of parent/guardian to provide opportunities for education), 350A (facilities for instruction in mother tongue at primary stage), Part XVII (Official Language), Eighth Schedule (recognised languages)

• Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act): Section 29(2)(f) – mandates that the curriculum and evaluation procedure shall take into consideration that the medium of instruction shall, as far as practicable, be in the child’s mother tongue.

• National Education Policy, 2020 (NEP, 2020): Recommends the use of mother tongue, home language, local language or regional language as the medium of instruction, at least until Grade V and preferably till Grade VIII.

Key Precedents Cited

1. State of U.P. & Anr. v. Anand Kumar Yadav & Ors. (unreported citation in judgment) – Emphasised that the right to education is the right to quality education.

2. Devesh Sharma v. Union of India & Ors. (2018) (citation not fully specified) – Highlighted that the RTE Act, 2009 was enacted to provide not merely free and compulsory education but education of satisfactory and equitable quality.

3. Society for Unaided Private Schools of Rajasthan v. Union of India (2012) 6 SCC 1 – Upheld the validity of the RTE Act and emphasised that it envisages imparting quality education.

4. English Medium Students Parents Association v. State of Karnataka (1994) 1 SCC 550 – Upheld the requirement of studying the regional language (Kannada) in schools, quoting Mahatma Gandhi on the importance of provincial languages.

5. State of Karnataka & Anr. v. Associated Management of English Medium Primary & Secondary Schools & Ors. (2014) (citation not fully specified) – Held that the right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) includes the freedom of a child to be educated at the primary stage in a language of his or her choice, and the State cannot impose controls on such choice.

What the Judgment is About

The judgment addresses the constitutional and statutory imperative of mother tongue‑based education. It examines whether a State can refuse to recognise a widely spoken regional language (Rajasthani) as a medium of instruction or as a subject for teacher recruitment on the ground that it is not included in the Eighth Schedule to the Constitution. The Court holds that the right to receive education in a comprehensible language is part of the fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a) and is reinforced by the RTE Act and NEP 2020. The State’s inaction in formulating a policy despite clear constitutional and legislative mandates is held to be unacceptable. The Court exercises its power to issue directions to the State to remedy the vacuum.

3. Relevant Facts

• Background of the PIL: The appellants filed a Public Interest Litigation before the Rajasthan High Court seeking two main reliefs:
  (i) To include the Rajasthan 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 (REET-2021).
  (ii) To direct the State of Rajasthan to impart education to children in the Rajasthan language or the relevant local language.

• High Court’s decision (27.11.2024): The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that a writ of mandamus can be issued only upon the petitioners establishing an enforceable legal right and demonstrating a corresponding failure on the part of the State authorities to discharge a statutory duty. It found that no such right had been established.

• Appeal before Supreme Court: The appellants challenged the High Court’s order.

• Respondents’ submissions: The State argued that education and recruitment are currently conducted only in languages recognised in the Eighth Schedule; Rajasthan is not included in the Schedule; Article 350A does not apply because speakers of Rajasthan language do not constitute a linguistic minority within the State; and NEP 2020 is merely an executive policy statement without statutory force, creating no enforceable rights.

• Fact of academic recognition: The Court noted that Rajasthan language is already being taught as a subject at the university level in several universities in Rajasthan (e.g., Jai Narain Vyas University, Maharaja Ganga Singh University, University of Rajasthan). Yet, the State refused to recognise it for school education or teacher recruitment.

• Conduct of the State: The State adopted a “lackadaisical” stance, defending its inaction on the technical ground that no policy exists and that only Eighth Schedule languages are used.

4. Issues

1. Whether the petitioners had an enforceable legal right to compel the State to include the Rajasthan language in the REET-2021 examination syllabus and to impart education in that language, and whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the PIL on the ground of absence of such a right.

2. Whether the right to receive education in one’s mother tongue or a language of choice is protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, and whether the State’s obligation to provide such education flows from Section 29(2)(f) of the RTE Act, 2009 and the National Education Policy, 2020.

3. Whether the State of Rajasthan can be directed to formulate a policy for mother tongue‑based education and to accord due recognition to the Rajasthan language for educational purposes, notwithstanding its non‑inclusion in the Eighth Schedule.

5. Ratio Decidendi

A. Specific relief for REET-2021 rendered infructuous (Para 30):

The Supreme Court noted that the primary relief sought by the appellants – inclusion of the Rajasthan language in the examination syllabus for REET-2021 – had become infructuous because the recruitment process had already been concluded. Therefore, no effective direction could be issued in that regard without unsettling a process that had attained finality.

B. Broader constitutional issues survive and require adjudication (Para 31):

Despite the specific relief becoming infructuous, the Court held that the issues raised transcend the confines of the particular examination and touch upon broader questions of constitutional significance concerning the recognition of language in education and public employment. Hence, the Court proceeded to decide the matter on principles.

C. Constitutional and statutory foundation for mother tongue‑based education (Paras 34-39):

The Court traced the constitutional framework: Articles 21, 21A, 41, 45, 51A(k) and 350A affirm the right to education and the State’s obligation to ensure accessible, equitable and quality education. Section 29(2)(f) of the RTE Act, 2009 mandates that the medium of instruction shall, as far as practicable, be in the child’s mother tongue. The National Education Policy, 2020 reinforces this by recommending home language/mother tongue as the medium of instruction at least until Grade V.

D. Right to choose medium of instruction under Article 19(1)(a) (Paras 42-44, citing Associated Management of English Medium Schools):

The Court reaffirmed the principle laid down in State of Karnataka v. Associated Management of English Medium Primary & Secondary Schools that the freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) includes the freedom of a child (or his parent/guardian) to choose the medium of instruction at the primary stage of school. The State cannot impose controls based on its own preference. Therefore, the child has a fundamental right to be educated in a language of his or her choice.

E. The State’s “lackadaisical” response and Eighth Schedule argument rejected (Para 46):

The State argued that only Eighth Schedule languages are recognised for school education. The Court rejected this as a “myopic stance” and “technical premise” to sidestep the constitutional imperative. The absence of a policy was projected as a ground to defend inertia, which the Court found unacceptable. The Court noted that Rajasthan language is already being taught at the university level, which belies the State’s claim that it lacks institutional or pedagogical acceptance.

F. Duty of the Court to enforce constitutional rights (Para 47):

The Court held that while it is not the province of the Court to enter upon the arena of policy formulation, it is its solemn constitutional duty to ensure that guarantees under Part III of the Constitution are not rendered illusory by executive inaction. Once the Union has acknowledged the necessity of mother tongue‑based education, a corresponding obligation arises for the States to take timely, effective steps. Failure to do so cannot be countenanced.

G. Directions issued (Paras 49-51, 54):

• The State of Rajasthan shall formulate an appropriate and comprehensive policy for the effective implementation of the constitutional mandate relating to mother tongue‑based education, in light of the National Education Policy, 2020.

• The State shall take necessary measures to recognise and accord due status to the Rajasthan language as a local/regional language for educational purposes and to progressively facilitate its adoption as a medium of instruction, initially at foundational and preparatory stages of schooling and progressively at higher levels.

• The State shall take affirmative and time‑bound steps towards introducing and providing Rajasthan as a subject in all schools, government and private, in a phased manner.

• A compliance affidavit shall be filed by 25.09.2026, and the matter shall be listed on 30.09.2026 for receiving the compliance affidavit.

6. New Legal Principles Established / Reiterated

• The right to choose the medium of instruction at the primary stage is a facet of Article 19(1)(a): The Court reaffirmed that this right is not limited to the “three-language formula” or to languages recognised in the Eighth Schedule. A child (or parent/guardian) has a fundamental right to be educated in a language of their choice, subject to reasonable restrictions.

• Non‑inclusion in the Eighth Schedule is not a valid ground to deny mother tongue education: The State cannot hide behind the Eighth Schedule to refuse recognition to a widely spoken regional language that is already academically recognised at the university level. The Eighth Schedule is not exhaustive and does not limit the State’s constitutional obligation under Article 350A or the RTE Act.

• Judicial enforcement of policy directives when coupled with statutory obligations: While NEP 2020 is an executive policy statement, when read with Section 29(2)(f) of the RTE Act and Article 19(1)(a), it creates enforceable obligations. The Court can issue directions to the State to formulate policies where none exist, if the failure to do so results in the violation of fundamental rights.

• Procedural technicalities (such as a PIL becoming infructuous) do not bar the Court from addressing systemic constitutional issues: Even if the immediate relief is no longer available, the Court may still issue directions to remedy a continuing constitutional vacuum affecting the rights of a large class of citizens.

7. Court’s Analysis and Examination of Concepts

The Court began by setting the philosophical context: language is not merely a tool of communication but the “very essence of an individual” and the medium through which thought takes shape and identity finds recognition. It traced the constitutional history – from Constituent Assembly debates to the incorporation of Article 350A (Seventh Amendment) and the expansion of the Eighth Schedule.

The Court then examined the pedagogical and constitutional significance of mother tongue‑based education. It cited the D.S. Kothari Commission and successive National Education Policies to show a consistent policy consensus that instruction in the mother tongue enhances comprehension and cognitive development. The Court also quoted Mahatma Gandhi (“the medium of instruction should be altered at once and at any cost, the provincial languages being given their rightful place”).

The Court analysed Section 29(2)(f) of the RTE Act, 2009 and held that the phrase “as far as practicable” is not an escape clause for the State but a directive that the State must take practical steps to implement mother tongue education. The State cannot plead impracticability without demonstrating genuine attempts.

The Court distinguished the State’s reliance on the Eighth Schedule. It noted that the Eighth Schedule is primarily for official language purposes and does not exhaust the linguistic diversity that the State must accommodate for educational purposes. The fact that the Central Government has recognised 22 languages in the Eighth Schedule does not mean that States cannot recognise other regional languages for school education.

The Court also addressed the argument under Article 350A (linguistic minorities). It held that Article 350A is not the sole source of the obligation; the right to mother tongue education flows from Article 19(1)(a) and the RTE Act, independent of minority status. A child belonging to the majority linguistic community also has the right to be educated in his or her mother tongue.

Finally, the Court rejected the State’s claim that it was awaiting a policy directive from the Central Government. The Court held that the State has independent constitutional and statutory obligations that cannot be deferred indefinitely.

8. Critical Analysis

Strengths: The judgment is a landmark affirmation of linguistic rights in education. It bridges the gap between constitutional ideals (Article 350A, RTE Act, NEP 2020) and ground‑level implementation. By locating the right to choose the medium of instruction within Article 19(1)(a), the Court gives it a fundamental rights character, which enhances its justiciability. The rejection of the Eighth Schedule as a ceiling on language recognition is a significant clarification that will have repercussions in other States where regional languages are similarly excluded. The directions are specific, time‑bound, and include a compliance monitoring mechanism (listing for receipt of affidavit), indicating the Court’s intention to ensure actual implementation, not mere paper compliance.

Potential concerns: The judgment does not explicitly overrule any precedent, but it significantly expands the scope of Article 19(1)(a) in the context of education. Some may argue that this could lead to fragmentation, with every linguistic group demanding instruction in its own language, which may not be administratively feasible. However, the Court has limited its holding to the primary stage (foundational and preparatory levels) and has used the phrase “as far as practicable” to allow the State some flexibility. The judgment does not prescribe a specific timeline for implementing the directives beyond the filing of a compliance affidavit; the actual implementation may still be delayed. Also, the Court did not address the financial implications or the availability of trained teachers in the Rajasthan language – issues that the State will have to tackle.

Practical impact: This judgment will be cited in similar PILs across India where regional languages are not recognised for school education or teacher recruitment. It will compel States to formulate policies for mother tongue‑based education beyond the Eighth Schedule. It also strengthens the legal position of parents and children who wish to be educated in their mother tongue. The judgment may also lead to amendments in State education rules to include regional languages as mediums of instruction and as subjects.

9. Final Outcome

• Civil Appeal allowed.

• The impugned order of the High Court dated 27.11.2024 is set aside.

• The State of Rajasthan is directed 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 Rajasthan language as a local/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.

• The State shall take affirmative and time‑bound steps towards introducing and providing Rajasthan as a subject in all schools (government and private) in a phased manner.

• The State shall file a compliance affidavit by 25.09.2026.

• The matter shall be listed on 30.09.2026 for receiving the compliance affidavit.

• No order as to costs.

10. Practical Application (Use in Court)

• For parents/students/activists in other States: If your State does not recognise your regional language (e.g., Bhojpuri, Maithili, Garhwali, Kumaoni, Marwari, etc.) as a medium of instruction or as a subject in schools, file a Public Interest Litigation or a writ petition citing this judgment. Argue that the right to be educated in one’s mother tongue is a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a) and is reinforced by Section 29(2)(f) of the RTE Act, 2009 and the NEP 2020. The State cannot hide behind the Eighth Schedule to deny recognition.

• For State Governments: If you are facing such a petition, you cannot simply plead that the language is not in the Eighth Schedule. You must demonstrate genuine efforts to implement mother tongue‑based education, including feasibility studies, teacher training, and curriculum development. The Court may direct you to formulate a policy within a fixed timeline.

• For courts (High Courts): When a PIL is dismissed as infructuous because the specific recruitment or examination is concluded, consider whether the underlying systemic issue (e.g., non‑recognition of a language) remains alive. If yes, follow the approach in this judgment and decide the broader constitutional issue rather than dismissing the petition as infructuous.

11.  Court Lines

“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.” (Para 3)

“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.” (Para 43, quoting Associated Management of English Medium Schools)

“This lackadaisical response, rather than 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.” (Para 46)

“A right that exists only on paper, without corresponding administrative will or implementation, is in effect no right at all.” (Para 45)

12. Legal Strategy Insight

• For petitioners (activists, parents, students): When filing a PIL for recognition of a regional language, do not limit your prayer to a specific recruitment examination that may become time‑barred. Include a prayer for policy formulation and for the State to implement mother tongue‑based education in accordance with the RTE Act and NEP 2020. This will survive even if the recruitment challenge fails. Also, base your case on Article 19(1)(a) and the right to choose the medium of instruction, not merely on Article 350A (which applies to linguistic minorities). Gather evidence that the language is already taught at the university level or used in other official contexts to rebut the State’s claim that it is not “academically recognised”.

• For State Governments (respondents): If you are served with a similar petition, do not rely solely on the Eighth Schedule argument. Instead, proactively develop a roadmap for implementing mother tongue education in phases. Set up committees, conduct surveys, and produce a timeline. This will demonstrate good faith and may lead the court to accept your plan rather than issuing strict directions. If you have genuine practical difficulties (e.g., lack of textbooks or trained teachers), state them clearly and seek reasonable time.

• For courts: When a petitioner seeks recognition of a regional language that is not in the Eighth Schedule, follow the reasoning of this judgment. Determine (i) whether the language is spoken by a substantial population in the State; (ii) whether it is already used in other educational contexts (e.g., university level); (iii) whether the State has any rational basis for excluding it. If the State’s only defence is the Eighth Schedule, reject it and direct the State to formulate a policy.