Telangana HC seeks detailed report in 2 weeks on implementation of 2018 law mandating Telugu education in schools

The division bench, also comprising Justice G M Mohiuddin, refused to grant an interim stay on a 2024 government memo that makes learning the language compulsory in higher classes. Instead, the bench focused its inquiry on the state’s failure to enforce the Act since its enactment in 2018.

The petition, filed by Pramila Pathak, a senior Hindi teacher, contested a December 7, 2024, memo that mandates Telugu as a compulsory second language for classes 9 and 10, beginning with the 2025-26 academic year. The petitioner’s counsel argued that this directive is unconstitutional and arbitrary because it forces students from non-Telugu linguistic backgrounds to learn the language at an advanced stage without prior preparation.

The plea seeks to restrain the state from imposing this requirement on students enrolled in schools under the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE), Indian Certificate of Secondary Education (ICSE), International Baccalaureate (IB), and Cambridge Board who have not opted for Telugu from Class 1.

The core of the legal challenge lies in the discrepancy between the original mandate of the Telangana (Compulsory Teaching and Learning of Telugu in Schools) Act, 2018, and its subsequent implementation. The Act itself provided for a progressive, phase-wise rollout, starting with Classes 1 and 6 in the 2019-20 academic year, with the goal of covering all classes from 1 to 10 by the 2025-26 academic year.

However, the petitioner alleges that many private CBSE, ICSE, and international board schools failed to adhere to this initial, gradual implementation plan.

The government counsel stated that the Act had been fully implemented in all government schools but acknowledged that some private institutions had resisted compliance. The bench, however, found the state’s explanation to be lacking in detail.

When the counsel for the petitioner said, “Let government introduce (Telugu language) in 6th class and not in 7, 8 or 9,” the Chief Justice observed, “If they have issued government order earlier to get it implemented phase wise for class 1 and 6 onwards, each year-wise progressively, and your schools have not done it or the schools that the petitioner is concerned with has not done it, then today it is quite late in the day to say that now introduce it from 6th onwards because we have been late in implementation.”

Chief Justice Singh specifically sought a status update on why the 2018 Act was not enforced from Class 1 as originally intended. The court expressed dissatisfaction with the lack of clarity regarding the phase-wise implementation and questioned the absence of a periodic monitoring mechanism for schools.