Critics of the current three-language policy argue that the mandate is both legally questionable and practically impossible to implement in its current form. Legal experts and petitioners have pointed out that the CBSE, as an examining body, may lack the statutory authority to impose such sweeping curriculum changes, which they argue should fall under the purview of the NCERT. The lack of a clear legal foundation has led to concerns that the policy is being enforced arbitrarily, causing significant disruption for students and teachers alike.
The practical concerns are equally pressing. With schools across the country struggling to provide textbooks and qualified teachers for 22 different languages, critics argue that the policy creates an 'impossibility of human resources.' Forcing students to drop languages they have studied for years in favor of new ones—without adequate support—is seen as detrimental to their academic progress. Furthermore, the classification of English as a 'non-native' language is viewed by many as an outdated and unnecessary distinction that ignores the reality of English as a widely used, functional language in India for centuries.
Opponents also warn that the policy risks creating an uneven playing field. Without the necessary infrastructure in place, students in rural or under-resourced schools may be disproportionately affected, as they are less likely to have access to the required language teachers. By prioritizing a rigid language framework over the actual availability of resources, critics argue that the policy fails to serve the best interests of the students it is meant to educate, potentially hindering their future employment opportunities in an increasingly globalized economy.