The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday, August 2 issued a notice to the State government regarding a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the Karnataka government’s education policy. The PIL, filed by some concerned parents, challenged the compulsory teaching of Kannada languages in Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) and Council for the Indian School Certificate Examinations (CISCE) schools in the state. The plea said that the government’s decision affected the rights of students and teachers, and also raised constitutional concerns.
The petitioners are Somashekar C, Srinivas Gaonkar, Geraldine Perpetua Andrews, Aneesha Hussain and 16 other parents, all from Bengaluru.
The Karnataka government enacted three laws—the Kannada Language Learning Act (2015), Kannada Language Learning Rules (2017), and Karnataka Educational Institutions (Issue of No Objection Certificate and Control) Rules (2022)—that mandate the teaching of Kannada as a compulsory subject from Class I to X in all schools, including CBSE and CISCE schools. The petition argues that these laws prejudice both students and teachers and are contrary to the Karnataka Education Act (1983), which previously excluded CBSE and CISCE schools from its provisions.
The PIL contends that the three enactments infringe upon several constitutional safeguards and guarantees. It also argues that the laws are inconsistent with the Karnataka Education Act (1983). The NOC Rules (Karnataka Educational Institutions) have provisions that go beyond the scope of the parent Act, leading to contradictions.
The PIL cites the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 and a coordinate bench order, which stated that there should be no language imposition under the NEP. This reinforces the argument against the compulsory imposition of Kannada language in schools. The petitioners said that they do not oppose Kannada being taught as a language in schools. However, they oppose the manner in which it is being mandatorily imposed. “...its compulsory imposition in the manner that is sought to be done through the above enactments would cause severe prejudice to school children and fall foul of constitutional principles and this issue is sought to be urged in the instant writ petition by way of public interest,” the petition read.
This comes after Congress-led government in Karnataka announced its plans to scrap the National Education Policy and formulate a state education policy. NEP is a comprehensive framework for the development of education in India, which was aimed to bring “transformative changes” in the education system. It was approved by the Union government in July 2020.
In 2021, when Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) was in power, Karnataka was the first state in the country to announce the implementation of the National Education Policy (NEP) in higher education. Educationists in Karnataka had expressed deep concerns over some of the proposals made by the previous BJP government to be included in the school curriculum under the NEP.
The petitioners argue that the No Objection Certificate (NOC) Rules, which fall under the Karnataka Educational Institutions (Issue of No Objection Certificate and Control) Rules, 2022, have provisions that go beyond the scope of the parent Act, the Karnataka Education Act (1983) (The act governs the education system in the state covering various aspects of educational institutions and administration). The NOC Rules apply to schools affiliated with CBSE and CISCE and make Kannada language compulsory as either a Second or a Third language.
According to the petition, Rule 6(1) of the NOC Rules states that all schools affiliated to CBSE and CISCE shall come under the Karnataka Education Act, 1983 purview. The petitioners contend that such a stipulation is contrary ,to Section 1(3)(a) of the Karnataka Education Act, which previously excluded CBSE and CISCE schools from its ambit. This, they argue, creates inconsistency and conflict between the NOC Rules and the Parent Act.
Additionally, Rule 6(2) of the NOC Rules mandates that Kannada shall be taught as a Second or Third language as per the provisions of the Kannada Language Learning Act (2015) and the Kannada Language Learning Rules (2017). However, the petitioners point out that the Impugned Rules (Rules under the Kannada Language Learning Act) do not provide any mechanism or method by which Kannada could be taught as a Third language. This, they argue, raises questions about the practical implementation and effectiveness of such a mandate.
Rule 6(5) of the NOC Rules states that the State Government may withdraw the NOC granted to an institution in case of any violation of the provisions of the NOC Rules. The petitioners contend that such a provision has been made only to threaten CBSE and CISCE schools into compulsorily teaching Kannada as a language. They argue that this penal consequence cannot be traced back to the parent Act, the Karnataka Education Act (1983), further highlighting potential inconsistencies and contradictions.
The petitioners also sought interim relief to stay the implementation of the challenged enactments until the matter is fully resolved. However, the court refused to grant interim orders until the State government files its statement of objections.