The Tamil Nadu government has escalated its long-standing opposition to the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 by filing a constitutional suit in the Supreme Court under Article 131, accusing the Central government of illegally withholding ₹2,291.30 crore in school education funds. The legal move brings the Centre-State tension over education policy and federal rights into sharp national focus.
Why Tamil Nadu Moved the Supreme Court
Tamil Nadu’s primary contention is that the Centre is withholding funds under the Samagra Shiksha Scheme (SSS) — a flagship program supporting inclusive school education — to coerce the state into adopting the NEP 2020 and related initiatives like PM SHRI Schools. This, the state claims, is unconstitutional and an attack on federalism.
The state is seeking:
-
Immediate release of ₹2,151.59 crore (Centre’s 60% share for FY 2024–25).
-
6% annual interest on the delayed payment, calculated from May 1, 2025.
-
Nullification of two Union government letters (dated Feb 23 and Mar 7, 2024) that allegedly made fund release conditional on NEP and PM SHRI compliance.
What Article 131 Says
Article 131 of the Indian Constitution allows a state to approach the Supreme Court directly in disputes with the Centre involving legal or constitutional rights, making this a rare and significant federal case.
Tamil Nadu’s Core Legal Arguments
-
Violation of the Right to Education Act, 2009
-
The Act mandates the Union government to provide 60% of the funding for schemes like SSS.
-
The Centre’s refusal to release this share is seen as a breach of a statutory obligation.
-
-
Policy vs. Law
-
NEP 2020 and PM SHRI are policy documents, not laws passed by Parliament.
-
Hence, they are non-binding, and it is unconstitutional to link fund release to their implementation.
-
-
Federalism and Coercion
-
Withholding funds for not adopting NEP amounts to coercion and undermines the autonomy of states.
-
It violates the spirit of cooperative federalism, the state asserts.
-
-
Supreme Court Precedent
-
The Supreme Court has previously rejected pleas to force Tamil Nadu to implement the NEP, stating it can't use Article 32 to compel state-level policy decisions.
-
Why Tamil Nadu Opposes NEP
Tamil Nadu has consistently rejected NEP 2020, mainly due to:
-
The three-language formula, which includes Hindi — a politically sensitive issue in the Tamil-majority state.
-
Concerns that NEP undermines the Dravidian model of social justice and state-led education policies.
The state has also formally requested revisions to the PM SHRI MoU clauses that require NEP implementation. However, the Centre has reportedly not responded positively.
Implications
This case is about more than just education funding:
-
It questions the limits of Centre’s power in federal financial transfers.
-
It may define whether states can be financially pressured into following central policies that aren’t legally binding.
-
A ruling in Tamil Nadu’s favor could set a constitutional precedent protecting state autonomy in sectors like education, where both state and central governments share responsibility.
This legal confrontation could become a landmark federalism case, especially in a politically charged atmosphere where the NEP remains controversial in several non-BJP-ruled states.
