The Kerala High Court on Monday deferred the implementation of a government order mandating Hindi as the third language in Lakshadweep schools, depriving students of the option to choose Arabic or Mahl languages previously available to them, observing that a language holds deep cultural significance and any changes could have serious ramifications.
The decision came in response to a Public Interest Litigation filed by Ajas Akber, President of the National Students Union of India (NSUI), Lakshadweep.
The Union Territory of Lakshadweep, for the past seventy years, had the option of Arabic/Mahl as a third language.
With regard to Minicoy Island, the Mahl language holds a distinct cultural identity.
During the hearing, the Court questioned the Lakshadweep Administration on whether any study had been conducted to assess the necessity and impact of changing the existing language options.
In response, the Administration’s counsel admitted that no such study was undertaken prior to issuing the order.
However, the counsel attempted to justify the decision by citing the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020, the National Curriculum Framework for the Foundational Stage (2022), and the National Curriculum Framework for School Education (2023).
The Court, however, observed that the NEP 2020 merely recommends that out of the three languages taught in schools, two should be native to India. Importantly, the policy also emphasizes that no language should be imposed and that the choice of languages should rest with the respective States, regions, and students.
“The impugned order provides no reasons, except for references to the Education Policies of 2020 and 2023. These Policies are placed on record,” the Court noted, expressing concern over the lack of a clear rationale or supporting study for the language shift.
“The National Education Policy 2020 lays down certain fundamental principles. It refers to early childhood care and education, as well as foundational literacy and numeracy,” the Court said, highlighting that the policy’s focus is broad and foundational, not limited to language imposition.
It further emphasized that policy directives must be interpreted in line with constitutional values and local realities. “With regard to curriculum and pedagogy in schools, the Policy states that the Three-Language Formula will be implemented while keeping in mind the Constitutional provisions, the aspirations of the people, regions, and the Union, and the need to promote multilingualism as well as national unity.”
This, the Court observed, reinforces the idea that any change in language instruction must consider local cultural and linguistic contexts, rather than applying a one-size-fits-all model.
“It is stated that there will be greater flexibility in the Three-Language Formula, and no language will be imposed on any State. The three languages learnt by children will be the choice of the States, regions, and the students themselves, so long as at least two of the three languages are native to India,” the Court said.
The Kerala High Court observed that the order mandating Hindi as the third language in Lakshadweep schools was issued in the manner of an office order, typically used for routine administrative matters, and not appropriate for decisions with deep and lasting impacts on local conditions.
The bench further noted that Arabic is a prescribed subject under the Kerala Education Rules, 1959, and the Kerala Curriculum Framework. Of the 34 schools in Lakshadweep, 26 follow the SCERT Kerala syllabus.
The petitioner, Ajas Akber, argued that the Arabic language and the Kerala syllabus are deeply embedded in the local culture and traditions of the islanders.
He highlighted that Mahl is the exclusive language of Minicoy Island and that removing it from the curriculum undermines the constitutional rights of a minority community.
In support of retaining Arabic, the petitioner pointed out its global relevance, particularly its utility in securing employment in the Middle East.
He also emphasized that all schools in the islands are government-run, with no private or aided alternatives. Thus, implementation of the order would effectively eliminate the teaching of Mahl and Arabic across all schools in Lakshadweep.
The Court observed that, though it had specifically called upon the Respondent Administration to submit any material reflecting the application of mind prior to issuing the impugned order, “no such material has been placed before us which would show that the Policy was applied in the context of the specific conditions on the island.”
“In these circumstances, in our view, a prima facie case is made out by the Petitioner that the impugned office order was issued without conducting any study or consultation with stakeholders. The Petition has already been admitted,” said the Court.
The interim order deferring the implementation of the impugned office order dated 14 May 2025 will continue pending hearing of this petition.
