PADAM MEHTA AND ANOTHER versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS

Citation: [2026] 5 S.C.R. 597 · Decided: 12-05-2026 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: VIKRAM NATH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2026] 5 S.C.R. 597 : 2026 INSC 476
Padam Mehta and Another 
v. 
State of Rajasthan and Others
(Civil Appeal No. 7458 of 2026)
12 May 2026
[Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Matter arose as regards inclusion of Rajasthani language as medium 
of instructions for education and public employment.
Headnotes†
Constitution of India – Arts.19(1)(a), 136 – Linguistic minority – 
Inclusion of the Rajasthani language in Schools – PIL by 
the appellants seeking a direction to the respondents to 
include the Rajasthani language in the examination syllabus 
for recruitment to the post of Teacher, under the Rajasthan 
Eligibility Examination for Teachers, 2021, and to impart 
education to children in the Rajasthani language or the 
relevant local language – Petition dismissed by the High Court 
holding that a writ of mandamus can be issued only upon the 
petitioners/appellants establishing an enforceable legal right 
and demonstrating a corresponding failure on the part of the 
State authorities to discharge a statutory duty – Correctness:
Held: Primary relief as regards the inclusion of the Rajasthani 
language in the examination syllabus of the REET-2021, rendered 
infructuous since the recruitment process has been conducted 
and concluded, and attained finality long back – However, the 
issues raised touches upon broader questions of constitutional 
significance concerning the recognition of language in the 
sphere of education and public employment – Right to receive 
education in one’s mother language finds its normative basis in  
Art.19(1)(a), for the guarantee of freedom of speech and expression 
necessarily encompasses the right to receive information in a 
form that is both meaningful and comprehensible – True value 
of this freedom lies not merely in the ability to communicate, but 
in the ability to understand, internalize, and process information 
so as to make informed choices – Thus, education, being a 
* Author
598
[2026] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
primary vehicle for transmission of knowledge, must, to the extent 
practicable, be imparted in a language that the child understands 
best – Instruction in the mother language, or a language of 
choice, fortifies the learner’s conceptual clarity, ensures deeper 
cognitive engagement, and secures the constitutional promise of 
meaningful access to knowledge – However, despite such clear 
policy articulation by the Central Government, there appears 
to be a substantial deficit in the actual implementation of these 
commitments by the State at the ground level – Continued 
inaction and inadequacy on the part of State Government in 
operationalising this mandate not only undermines statutory 
and policy directives but also risks infringing fundamental rights 
guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution – State submitted that 
only those languages as are enumerated in the Eighth Schedule 
to the Constitution are presently taught as subjects in Government 
Primary and Upper Primary Schools, and that, consequently, there 
exists neither any policy decision nor administrative framework 
to recognise or adopt the language in question as a medium 
of instruction or as a subject for recruitment – This approach 
cannot be regarded as satisfactory, for it reflects an utter failure 
to translate constitutional assurances into concrete action, and, 
if accepted, would risk reducing the rights recognised under the 
Constitution to a mere formality and the broader constitutional 
commitment to linguistic diversity and meaningful access to 
education – Court cannot remain a silent spectator to the stark 
dilution of rights so clearly recognised in constitutional text, 
legislative enactments, and binding precedents – Once the Union 
itself has, through legislative measures and policy frameworks, 
acknowledged the necessity of imparting education in a language 
intelligible to the child, a corresponding obligation arises for the 
States to take timely, effective and purposive steps towards its 
realisation – In the absence of an appropriate policy framework, 
this Court would be failing in its constitutional duty were it to 
remain indifferent to the continued non-realisation of rights and 
obligations so clearly envisaged under the Constitution – State of 
Rajasthan 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 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.