Kerala HC Stays Lakshadweep Administration’s Order on Three-Language Formula, Cites Lack of Stakeholder Consultation

Ernakulam – In a significant ruling, the Kerala High Court, presided over by Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Basant Balaji, has stayed an office order issued by the Director of Education, Union Territory of Lakshadweep, dated May 14.

The order, which sought to implement the Three-Language Formula (TLF) by excluding Mahl and Arabic as optional subjects from Standard I onwards, was challenged in a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by Ajas Akber P I, a 29-year-old social worker and president of the National Students Union of India, Lakshadweep Unit. The court’s interim order ensures that the existing language options, including Arabic and Mahl, will remain in place pending the final hearing of the case.

The PIL, registered as WP(PIL) No. 48 of 2025, was filed by Ajas Akber, a resident of Kalpeni Island, who argued that the Lakshadweep Administration’s decision to exclude Mahl and Arabic from the TLF was made hastily and without adequate consultation or study.

The petitioner emphasized the cultural and historical significance of these languages, particularly Mahl, which holds a distinct identity for the residents of Minicoy Island. For the past seven decades, the education system in Lakshadweep has included Arabic and Mahl as optional third languages, a practice the petitioner claimed was integral to the region’s cultural fabric.

The impugned office order, issued by the Director of Education (Respondent No. 3), was described by the petitioner as a routine administrative directive, lacking any reasoning or justification for altering a long-standing educational practice. The petitioner sought a stay on the order and a direction to prevent the removal of Arabic and Mahl as optional languages under the TLF.

Court Proceedings and Key Observations

The case was first brought before the court on June 3, when the bench directed the Lakshadweep Administration to provide evidence of any studies or stakeholder consultations conducted prior to issuing the order. On June 5, the court admitted the petition, issued a rule, and passed an interim order deferring the implementation of the May 14 order, noting that schools in Lakshadweep were set to reopen on June 9, 2025. The court later learned that the implementation for CBSE-affiliated schools was scheduled to begin on July 1, 2025, as per a CBSE communication dated May 22, 2025, while non-CBSE schools under the Union Territory Board had already commenced their academic year.

During the hearing on June 9, the court heard arguments from Mr. K.P.S. Suresh, counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. K.S. Prenjith Kumar, standing counsel for the Lakshadweep Administration. The administration relied on a counter affidavit, 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 to justify the order. However, the counsel conceded that no specific study had been conducted to assess the implications of excluding Mahl and Arabic.

The court noted that while it typically refrains from interfering in educational policy matters, such restraint is contingent on decisions being made by experts after thorough study and consultation. The bench found the administration’s order lacking in both, stating, “No material whatsoever is produced before us” to demonstrate that the decision was made with due consideration of local conditions or cultural implications.

The court highlighted the cultural significance of the languages in question, particularly Mahl, which is deeply tied to the identity of Minicoy Island. The petitioner pointed out that 26 of the 34 schools in Lakshadweep are affiliated with the State Council of Educational Research and Training (SCERT), Kerala, where Arabic is a prescribed subject under the Kerala Education Rules, 1959, and the Kerala Curriculum Framework. The long-standing inclusion of Arabic and Mahl in the curriculum was argued to be interwoven with the region’s cultural and traditional fabric.

The NEP 2020, referenced by the administration, emphasizes flexibility in the TLF, allowing states and regions to choose languages while ensuring at least two are native to India. The policy also underscores the importance of preserving cultural identity and promoting multilingualism without imposing languages on any region. The court observed that the policy requires “application of mind” and a study of local conditions, which was absent in the Lakshadweep Administration’s decision-making process.

Finding a prima facie case, the court extended the interim order deferring the implementation of the May 14, 2025, office order. The bench directed that the existing language options for both CBSE and non-CBSE schools in Lakshadweep should continue until the petition is finally resolved. The court emphasized that the impugned order, issued as a routine administrative directive, failed to address the fundamental impact of removing Mahl and Arabic, especially given their historical prevalence in the region’s education system.

The court also granted the Lakshadweep Administration the opportunity to conduct a comprehensive study of local conditions and engage in meaningful stakeholder consultations. The administration was informed that it could apply for appropriate orders based on such studies, which would be considered on their merits.