Kerala HC Halts Lakshadweep Language Order | No Study or Stakeholder Consultation Found | Cultural Identity Deserves Due Process
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Kerala Division Bench of Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Basant Balaji ordered a stay on the implementation of a directive issued by the Lakshadweep Administration concerning the exclusion of Arabic and Mahl as optional subjects under the Three-Language Formula (TLF). The Bench directed that the status quo be maintained with respect to language options in schools across the Union Territory of Lakshadweep until a comprehensive study and meaningful consultation with stakeholders is conducted. The Court held that the interim order deferring the implementation of the impugned office order dated 14 May 2025 will continue and observed that the decision lacked material indicating consideration of local conditions or stakeholder engagement.
The matter pertained to a writ petition (public interest litigation) filed by a social worker and president of the National Students Union of India (Lakshadweep Unit), who is a resident of Kalpeni Island in Lakshadweep. The petition challenged the office order dated 14 May 2025 issued by the Director of Education, Union Territory of Lakshadweep. The directive introduced a change in the implementation of the Three-Language Formula from Standard I onwards, removing Arabic and Mahl as optional language subjects.
The petitioner contended that the decision was made hastily without consulting stakeholders or conducting a study on its educational or cultural implications, particularly for regions such as Minicoy Island where Mahl holds cultural significance. The petitioner stated that Arabic and Mahl have been integral to the education system in Lakshadweep for over seventy years. The order, according to the petitioner, was issued as a routine administrative office order without substantive justification for changing an entrenched educational practice.
The petition came up for consideration on 3 June 2025, during which the Court inquired whether the administration had conducted any study regarding the necessity and implications of altering the language selection. The administration was also asked to clarify if stakeholder consultations had occurred. When the matter was further heard on 5 June 2025, the petition was admitted, and an interim order was passed deferring the office order, noting that the academic year was set to begin on 9 June 2025.
Later the same day, during the afternoon session, counsel for the Lakshadweep Administration informed the Court that the implementation of the directive would commence on 1 July 2025, at least in CBSE-affiliated schools. However, the directive would still apply from 9 June 2025 in schools under the Union Territory Board.
At the hearing held on 9 June 2025, the Court heard counsel from both sides. The standing counsel for the Administration submitted that implementation in CBSE schools would be as per a CBSE communication dated 22 May 2025, but clarified that non-CBSE schools had already commenced the academic year.
The petitioner stated that many schools in the Union Territory were affiliated with the SCERT, Kerala, and were thus guided by the Kerala Education Rules and the Kerala Curriculum Framework, under which Arabic is a prescribed subject. The petitioner also pointed out that Arabic is offered as an option in the CBSE curriculum as well.
The Court acknowledged that ordinarily it would not interfere with educational policy decisions, particularly regarding curriculum design. However, such deference is premised on the assumption that policy decisions are taken by subject matter experts following detailed study and wide-ranging consultation.
In its arguments, the Lakshadweep Administration referenced the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020, the National Curriculum Framework for the Foundational Stage 2022, and the National Curriculum Framework for School Education 2023 to justify the directive. However, the counsel for the Administration conceded that no study had been conducted to assess the suitability or implications of excluding Arabic and Mahl in the specific context of Lakshadweep.
The petitioner submitted that out of 34 schools in Lakshadweep, 26 follow the SCERT Kerala syllabus. It was argued that the educational pattern prevalent for decades, including the instruction in Arabic and Mahl, is deeply interwoven with the islands’ local traditions and culture.
The Court recorded that "the impugned office order is sought to be justified on the ground that the decision taken is correct." However, the order provided no rationale beyond citing the Education Policies of 2020 and 2023.
The Bench noted "The impugned order provides no reasons, except for references to the Education Policies of 2020 and 2023." It also observed that the National Education Policy 2020 recognizes regional aspirations and cultural diversity, stating, "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 judgment further stated, "Clause 27 of the Policy of 2020 states that implementation will require multiple initiatives and actions... to ensure that the Policy is implemented in its spirit and intent."
Regarding the Mahl language, the Bench noted that the Administration claimed it had not been discontinued. However, the petitioner stressed that no new students would be allowed to opt for Arabic or Mahl, effectively sidelining the languages.
The Court remarked, "We had specifically called upon the Respondent Administration to place before us any material reflecting the application of mind prior to issuing the impugned order. However, no such material has been placed before us."
It observed that "the impugned directive is a mere office order, which is ordinarily issued for routine matters and not for purposes that would have a fundamental impact on local conditions."
Further, the Bench noted, "We are not guided by the impugned order as to how the decision was arrived at or what its implications would be, particularly since there is a change from the existing position prevailing for the last seventy years."
It concluded that "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 Division Bench directed that the interim stay on the implementation of the 14 May 2025 office order shall continue. It stated, "The position which has existed so far (in respect of CBSE and non-CBSE schools) in the Union Territory of Lakshadweep shall continue."
The Court allowed the Union Territory Administration to conduct a comprehensive local study and meaningful consultation, clarifying, "It is open to the Union Territory to conduct a study of the local conditions in the context of the prevailing Education Policies and to engage with all the stakeholders through a meaningful process of consultation (not merely for the purpose of record)."
The Court added, "If such studies and consultations are carried out, it will be open to the Respondents to apply for appropriate orders, and such application will be considered on its own merits."
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: M/s. Reena Sharon Suresh & K.P.S. Suresh, Advocates
For the Respondents: M/s. K.S. Prenjith Kumar, Central Government Counsel
Case Title: Ajas Akber P I v. Union Territory of Lakshadweep & Ors.
Case Number: WP(PIL) No. 48 of 2025
Bench: Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar, Justice Basant Balaji
[Read/Download order]
