New Delhi, May 28 -- The Supreme Court on Wednesday questioned the Union government, the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE), and the National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT) on whether adequate teachers, textbooks and logistical infrastructure exist for implementing the new three-language policy, as it agreed to examine a batch of petitions challenging the policy. A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, and justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi issued notices to the Centre, CBSE and NCERT, seeking their replies to the challenge against the policy introduced through a CBSE circular dated May 15, 2026. The court indicated that beyond the constitutional questions raised, it was concerned about the practical feasibility of enforcing the policy from the coming academic session. "Do the schools have enough books.teachers?" the bench repeatedly asked during the hearing, while observing that there appeared to be "issues of hardship, inconvenience and logistical support" requiring immediate attention. The matter will now be heard in the second week of July after the court directed the respondents to file their replies within four weeks. Addressing additional solicitor general Aishwarya Bhati, the bench said it wanted a detailed report on the logistical preparedness for implementation of the policy. "It is an issue of being unreasonable when teachers are not there in schools. books are not there," the bench observed. Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the petitioners, argued that the circular effectively compels students across the country to comply with the revised framework from July 1 itself, despite schools lacking the infrastructure to support the transition. "All India the mandate is. suppose in Chennai someone studies Tamil, English and French. Now they have to study Telugu etc," submitted Rohatgi, adding that even textbooks for the revised structure were unavailable. The bench acknowledged the concern, remarking: "If the teachers and books are not there then." Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Nidhi Sharma and several other parents in a matter concerning Class 7 and 8 students, submitted that the case raised significant constitutional concerns involving federalism and individual autonomy. "Language is a matter of choice and cannot be imposed," Sibal argued. The bench, however, clarified that at the present stage it was more immediately concerned with the implementation difficulties than with adjudicating the federalism challenge. "We are not on the federal issue. this is increasing the number of regional languages. There are issues of teachers, books etc," the court observed. Bhati, appearing for the Centre, submitted that the policy was framed keeping "the comfort of the student" in mind and requested that the matter be taken up in July instead of June. "Nothing is happening in July," she said, opposing an earlier hearing date sought by the petitioners. Rohatgi, however, maintained that implementation would begin from July 1 and students could face academic consequences. "You need not give exam but the final certificate will reflect, you won't get a certificate until you pass it," he submitted, urging the court that authorities "should hold their horses" until the challenge is decided. The bench eventually scheduled the matter for hearing after the court's reopening in July, while directing that soft copies of the petitions be supplied to Bhati and solicitor general Tushar Mehta by Thursday....