The Apex Court on June 9 refused to accept the Tamil Nadu government’s request for urgent listing of its petition against the Centre for the release of more than Rs.2,291 crore under the Samagra Shiksha Scheme. Back in Chennai, the Madras High Court, on June 10, ordered the Union Education Ministry to consider splitting the disbursal of funds to the TN government under its flagship Samagra Shiksha scheme, to enable it to disburse the money required to reimburse private schools under the RTE Act.
Since the DMK came to power in the state in 2021, it has consistently complained that the BJP-led Modi government at the Centre has ignored the state’s interests and withheld funds under various heads for what it terms ‘politically motivated’ reasons. The Centre, however, has refuted the DMK’s allegations in public and on social media, stating that Tamil Nadu’s refusal to implement the PM SHRI scheme in its entirety—including the three-language formula and other provisions of the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020—was the reason.
Earlier this month, CM M.K. Stalin, speaking at a function in Chennai, announced that the government would approach the Supreme Court on the issue and expressed hope of securing a favourable verdict, as it did in the case against Governor R.N. Ravi in April. On behalf of the TN government, senior advocate P. Wilson filed a petition in the Apex Court, claiming the ‘glaring and apparent reason’ for non-disbursement of funds was Tamil Nadu’s vociferous opposition to the imposition of NEP 2020 with its three-language formula and the exemplary PM SHRI School scheme.
The petition states: “The Defendant (GoI), by withholding the State’s entitlements to receive funds under the SS 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 under Entry 25, List III (education). The GoI seeks to coerce the State into implementing the NEP 2020 throughout the State in its entirety and to deviate from the education regime followed in the State.”
The TN government has also sought a declaration that the NEP 2020 and the PM SHRI scheme are not binding on the State unless and until a formal agreement is entered into between the State and the Union for their implementation within Tamil Nadu.
In the suit, the government has asked the SC, among other reliefs, to declare the Union government’s action—linking Tamil Nadu’s entitlement to receive SS scheme funds to the implementation of NEP 2020 and PM SHRI—as “unconstitutional, illegal, arbitrary, and unreasonable.” It also seeks a declaration that the Ministry of Education’s letters dated February 23 and March 7, 2024, in this regard, are “illegal, null, void ab initio,” and not binding on the State.
The petition alleged that “of the total Rs.3,585.99 crore approved by the project approval board, the Centre is yet to disburse Rs.2,151.59 crore towards its obligatory 60 percent contribution share to TN for 2025–26. This has affected 43,94,906 students, 2,21,817 teachers and 32,701 staff in Tamil Nadu.”
On June 9, Wilson pleaded that the State should be granted an urgent hearing. A two-judge vacation bench comprising Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Manmohan said, “There is no urgency in the plea and it can be taken up after the ‘partial working days’ (the new name for summer vacation).”
In Chennai, the Madras High Court division bench comprising Justices G.R. Swaminathan and V. Lakshminarayanan said, “The Centre has some issues as the State government has not adopted the NEP. However, it has an independent obligation under the RTE Act of 2009, which has nothing to do with the non-adoption of NEP. Section 7 of the RTE Act says that the Central government has concurrent responsibility for providing funds for carrying out the provisions of the Act. Therefore, funds payable to the State government, representing the Central government’s share towards discharging RTE obligations, need not be linked to NEP 2020.”
The court added, “We are not in a position to issue any binding direction in this regard,” but stopped short of issuing a direction to the Centre, instead merely asking it to ‘consider’ delinking the RTE component from the SSS funds and disbursing the amount accordingly.
The bench stated, “The government has an obligation to reimburse private unaided schools. Non-receipt of funds from the Central government can’t be cited as a reason to wriggle out of this statutory obligation.” The court disposed of a PIL which sought a direction to the State government to commence RTE admissions for the academic year 2025–26 without any delay.
