CASE NAME: Padam Mehta and Another V. State of Rajasthan and Others (2026 INSC 476)
CASE NUMBER: Civil Appeal No. 5988 of 2026 (Arising out of SLP © No. 1425 of 2025)
COURT: Supreme Court of India
DATE: May 12, 2026
QUORUM: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vikram Nath and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Mehta
FACTS
The appellants challenged an order of the Rajasthan High Court which had dismissed their plea to introduce “Rajasthani” as a subject in primary and secondary schools in the State of Rajasthan. The appellants argued that despite Rajasthani being the mother tongue of a vast majority of the state’s population and being recognized at the University level, it was excluded from the school curriculum. The State government’s primary defense was that the language had not yet been included in the Eighth Schedule of the Constitution of India.
ISSUES
- Whether the non-inclusion of a language in the Eighth Schedule of the Constitution is a valid ground for a State to refuse its introduction as a medium of instruction or subject in schools.
- Whether linguistic rights and access to education in one’s mother tongue constitute a fundamental right under the umbrella of Articles 19, 21, and 21A of the Constitution.
- Whether the state’s “static approach” toward the Rajasthani language resulted in a creation of vacuum in constitutional importance.
LEGAL PROVISIONS
- Article 19: Right to freedom of speech and expression.
- Article 21 & 21A: Right to life and the right to free and compulsory education.
- Article 350A: Facilitating instruction in mother-tongue at the primary stage.
- National Education Policy (NEP) 2020: Highlighting the importance of multilingualism and the power of language.
ARGUMENTS
APPELLANT
Argued that language is the essence of identity and a medium for thought. They contended that excluding Rajasthani hinders the cognitive development of children who speak it at home. They pointed out the irony that the language is taught at the Master’s and Ph.D. levels but ignored at the foundational school level.
RESPONDENT
Argued that the introduction of a language is a policy matter. They claimed that since Rajasthani is not an “official language” under the Eighth Schedule, the State was not mandated to provide it as a specific subject in all schools.
ANALYSIS
The Supreme Court criticized the State’s “static approach”. The Bench observed that language inclusion must precede with meaningful participation in the society. The Court held that the Eight Schedule is not a “gatekeeper” for educational curriculum, rather Article 350A imposes a duty on the state to provide adequate facilities for instruction in the mother tongue.
The Court noted that Rajasthani has institutional and historical acceptance at higher levels of education, making its exclusion at the school level logically irrelevant. The judgement emphasized that policy declarations like the NEP 2020 cannot be permitted to remain “dormant for want of executive action.”
JUDGEMENT
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order and allowed the appeal.
It directed the State of Rajasthan to take affirmative and time- bound steps to introduce Rajasthani as a subject in all schools (Government and Private) in a phased manner.
The State was ordered to file a compliance affidavit for the said order by September 25, 2026.
CONCLUSION
This judgement is a significant victory for linguistic pluralism in India. It shifts the focus from purely administrative classifications (like Eighth Schedule) to the substantive constitutional rights of students to learn in a language they understand. It reinforces the idea that the “accessibility of language” is fundamental to the “existential rights” of an individual.
“PRIME LEGAL is a National Award-winning law firm with over two decades of experience across diverse legal sectors. We are dedicated to setting the standard for legal excellence in civil, criminal, and family law.”
WRITTEN BY: LISHIKA BATRA
Read the judgement copy below:
PADAM MEHTA AND ANR. Versus THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS
