Supreme Court refuses urgent hearing to T.N.’s plea against Centre over education funds

The Supreme Court on Monday (June 9, 2025) refused to accord urgent hearing to a plea filed by the Tamil Nadu government against the Centre for allegedly withholding over ₹2,151 crore in central education funds.
| Photo Credit: The Hindu

The Supreme Court on Monday (June 9, 2025) refused Tamil Nadu’s oral plea for an urgent listing of its original suit criticising the Centre of stopping its annual share of crucial education funds to the tune of over ₹2000 crore under the Samagra Shiksha Scheme.

A Vacation Bench headed by Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra found no urgency in the case.

Senior Advocate P Wilson, who mentioned the suit, said the lack of funds would impact the future of nearly 48 lakh students in the State, and the academic year had commenced on June 3

“Since when were the funds deprived?” Justice Mishra asked.

“Last year the funds were not given. We have filed the suit on May 20, 2025,” Wilson said.

“No urgency,” Justice Mishra said.

The suit, drafted by advocates Richardson Wilson and Apoorv Malhotra, said the “glaring and apparent reason” for the non-disbursement of Samagra Shiksha Scheme funds is linked to the State’s vociferous opposition to the imposition of the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 with its three-language formula and the NEP-exemplary PM Shri Schools’ Scheme. The PM SHRI Schools Scheme mandates the implementation of the NEP-2020 in its entirety in the State.

The suit, filed through Tamil Nadu State counsel Sabarish Subramanian, had submitted that the Samagra Shiksha Scheme was not connected to the NEP-2020 and PM Shri Schools’ Scheme in any way.

“The Union government by withholding the State’s entitlement to receive funds under the Samagra Shiksha Scheme is in ignorance of the doctrine of cooperative federalism. The halt of education funds amounts to the usurpation of the constitutional power of the State to legislate under Entry 25, List III. The Union government seeks to coerce and force the State to implement the NEP-2020 throughout the State in its entirety and to deviate from the education regime followed in the State,” the suit has argued.

The Centre’s unilateral refusal to provide education funds amounted to a “blatant diktat” for the implementation of NEP-2020 and the linkage of the Samagra Shiksha Scheme with the PM SHRI Schools scheme.

The non-disbursement of ₹2151,59,61,000 towards its obligatory 60% contribution share under the Samagra Shiksha Scheme to Tamil Nadu for 2025-2026 as approved by the Project Approval Board has gravely hit the Samagra Shiksha Scheme and the implementation of the RTE Act, 2009. The lack of funds had affected 43,94,906 students, 2,21,817 teachers and 32,701 staff members in the State.

The Board had allocated a total of ₹3585.99 Cr as the total outlay for expenditure under the Samagra Shiksha Scheme.

The State has sought a judicial declaration that NEP-2020 and PM SHRI Schools’ Scheme was not binding on Tamil Nadu. It urged the court to declare the linkage of the State’s entitlement to receive Central share of education funds under the Samagra Shiksha Scheme with the total implementation of the NEP-2020 PM SHRI Schools “unconstitutional, illegal, arbitrary and unreasonable”. The suit wanted the Centre to pay up Rs. 2291 crore to the State within a specified time fixed by the apex court along with 6% interest per annum on the principal sum from May 1, 2025 till the date of realisation of the decree.

Tamil Nadu said Chief Minister MK Stalin had written to the Prime Minister objecting to the linking of the Samagra Shiksha Scheme with the full implementation of NEP-2020 and PM SHRI Schools Scheme, and sought his intervention for the release of the education funds. Mr. Stalin had conveyed that the linkage was “fundamentally unacceptable” and amounted to a pressure tactic to coerce the State to accept the Centrally-mandated programmes against its own time-tested State policies in a blatant violation of cooperative federalism. The Union government had rejected the CM’s concerns, the suit said.

Also read: How the two-language policy officially came into force in the State of Madras 

The State said it had consistently opposed the three-language formula under the NEP. In fact, the State legislative Assembly had passed a resolution in January 1968 had rejected the Official Languages (Amendment) Act, 1967, as well as the corresponding resolution passed by the Parliament.

“This State Resolution called for the scrapping of the three-language formula and mandated that only Tamil and English be taught in schools across Tamil Nadu, with Hindi being excluded from the curriculum. Consequently, the State has been exempted from implementing the Official Languages Act, 1963, as provided under the Official Languages Rules, 1976.

The State contended that clause 4.13 of the NEP-2020 recommends the three-language formula in all States “under the guise of multilingualism”.

“The State has enacted legislation that duly conforms with the two-language policy envisioned by it. The third language is left to the option of the students who do not have Tamil or English as their mother tongue. Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Tamil Learning Act, 2006 mandates the teaching of Tamil language as a compulsory subject from Classes one to 10 in all schools in a phased manner… The Union government cannot compel the State to implement its own policy under the guise of providing financial support,” Tamil Nadu has underscored.