Shivani Chaturvedi (Chennai)
Chief minister Stalin: favourable pendulum?
The stand-off between tamil Nadu chief minister M.K. Stalin and the BJP government at the Centre on the issue of the latter withholding a sum of Rs.2,150 crore due to the state under the Samagra Shiksha Scheme (SSS) will have to be resolved by the Supreme Court.
On May 21, TN’s DMK government filed a writ petition under Article 131 of the Constitution invoking the apex court’s original jurisdiction under which the court is empowered to adjudicate disputes between the Centre and states. At issue is the said sum of Rs.2,150 crore which Tamil Nadu claims is due to it under SSS.
Launched in 2018, SSS incorporates the previously launched Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA, primary education development) and the Rashtriya Madhyamik Shiksha Abhiyan (RMSA, secondary education development) programmes and teacher education initiatives to upgrade pre-primary to higher secondary schooling countrywide. The Union Budget 2025-26 provided Rs.41,250 crore for SSS. This amount is to be distributed among general category states (including Tamil Nadu) on a 60:40 ratio basis, i.e, the states have to provide 40 percent of the amount allocated by the Centre. Even the 60 percent provided by the Centre is distributed based on several parameters including the state’s population of children, out-of-school children, school infrastructure and learning outcomes.
Under the weighted formula, Hindi belt states (UP, Rajasthan, Bihar) get a greater share of the Central allocation than Tamil Nadu and southern states which are socio-economically more advanced. In the circumstances, successive governments in TN have maintained that the state has suffered because of better family planning, better schools and learning outcomes. Therefore the Centre withholding Rs.2,150 crore is being interpreted by the DMK government in Chennai as salt rubbed in a pre-existing wound.
The state government alleges that the Centre is deliberately holding back funds to pressure Tamil Nadu into adopting the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020, and signing up for the PM SHRI Schools scheme under which 14,500 existing schools — a handful in every state — are transformed into model NEP 2020 compliant schools. The state government has strongly, and repeatedly refused to implement NEP 2020 on grounds that it infringes upon TN’s cultural identity, language policy, and that it over-centralises education, a subject on the Concurrent List of the Constitution with state governments also entitled to frame and shape education policy. “It (NEP 2020) undermines our two-language policy and threatens our cultural identity,” says Stalin.
Therefore in June 2023, Stalin commissioned a panel chaired by Justice (Retd.) D. Murugesan to draft an alternative State Education Policy for Tamil Nadu. After 12 months of deliberation, the Murugesan Committee submitted a 600-page draft SEP to the state government last July which is expected to be enacted into legislation soon. However, Tamil Nadu’s SEP Act will need the approval of the state’s Governor A.N. Ravi, a Central government appointee who was severely reprimanded by the Supreme Court on April 8 for withholding his assent to several Bills of the state government. Thereafter, Tamil Nadu’s SEP legislation will need the assent of President Droupadi Murmu who is obliged to heed the advice of the (BJP) government at the Centre. In short, the state’s SEP has numerous hurdles to cross.
Educationists in Chennai are almost unanimous that the Rs.2,150 crore due to the state government which has to be distributed between Tamil Nadu’s 45,000 public schools and 6.50 million children, is a peripheral issue given the state’s allocation of Rs.55,261 crore for education in its 2025-26 budget. Therefore, the main issue is whether the state government can be forced to implement NEP 2020 across Tamil Nadu (pop.77 million).
However even as Tamil Nadu’s SEP Bill awaits formalisation, the pendulum seems to be swinging in the DMK government’s favour. On May 9, a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court dismissed a PIL (public interest litigation) seeking a directive to states (including Tamil Nadu, Kerala and West Bengal) to implement NEP 2020 and its three-language formula in particular. “It (the court) cannot directly compel a state to adopt a policy like NEP 2020. The court may however, intervene if a state’s action or inaction related to NEP 2020 violates fundamental rights… We do not propose to examine this issue in this writ petition,” opined JJ J.B. Pardivala and R. Mahadevan.
In the circumstances, the state government’s petition (State of Tamil Nadu vs. Union of India) filed under Article 131 is of great significance, and may well decide the fate of NEP 2020.
Also Read: Amit Shah Urges Stalin to Introduce Medical, Engineering Education in Tamil
