Click the Play button to listen to article

The Supreme Court on Thursday directed the Tamil Nadu government to comply with its December 15, 2025 order requiring identification of land in each district for establishing Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalayas, while urging the State and Centre to resolve their differences through dialogue.

A bench comprising Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Augustine George Masih was hearing Tamil Nadu's plea challenging the Madras High Court's 2017 direction to establish Navodaya schools in every district. Senior Advocate Jaideep Gupta, appearing for the State, submitted that the newly formed TVK government was seeking recall of the December 2025 order passed when the DMK government was in power.

The bench granted the State three months to identify suitable land and directed representatives of the State and Central governments to hold further discussions regarding the policy for establishing the schools. The matter has been posted for December 14.

'Chennai Shouldn't Alienate Delhi And Vice-Versa'

During the hearing, Justice Nagarathna emphasised the need for cooperative federalism and said that the establishment of Navodaya schools would provide additional educational opportunities without undermining Tamil Nadu's existing education system.

"People in Chennai should not alienate Delhi and vice versa," the Judge remarked, according to the hearing proceedings.

The bench also observed that the State's educational standards would not be lowered by the establishment of additional schools.

The Judge suggested that the State could consider the Central scheme as an addition to its existing educational initiatives and work out the differences with the Centre. 

"We are not alienating you and we are not alienating them. Some more type of schools come in your state also which will only enhance the high standard which we are aware of. This is not going to lower your standards. If Navodaya schools were going to lower the standard of education in Tamil Nadu we would have said that irrespective of what you would have said. That is not the case here. It will provide more opportunity," Justice Nagarathna told Gupta.

"Ultimately everybody must work together," Justice Nagarathna said, urging the State and Centre to engage in discussions.

Tamil Nadu Raises Language, Financial Concerns

Gupta submitted that Tamil Nadu was not opposed to the establishment of schools or the teaching of Hindi as such, but objected to the language policy associated with the Navodaya scheme.

He said that Hindi was being insisted upon as the predominant language in higher classes and that this raised concerns in a State where Tamil is required to be taught under State law. The State had earlier filed an affidavit detailing its opposition to the scheme, primarily on the ground of the 3-language formula.

Justice Nagarathna suggested that the language issue could be resolved through discussions between the State and Central governments.

"If you want Tamil as a second language, it is a matter which can be considered," the Judge said, asking the State's Secretary to speak to the corresponding Central government Secretary.

Gupta submitted that discussions had already taken place, but the Centre had remained adamant about Hindi. He nevertheless agreed to hold another round of consultations.

The State also raised financial concerns, submitting that the Centre had promised to release ₹5,000 crore for education but had not done so. Gupta argued that the State could not take on additional financial liabilities when the Centre had allegedly failed to release funds under existing schemes.

The bench observed that budgetary considerations and the language issue were distinct matters that could be addressed through negotiations.

'Only Land Is To Be Provided By State': Centre

Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj, appearing for the Centre, submitted that the only requirement from the State under the scheme was to provide land. The remaining expenses, including construction and other requirements, would be taken care of by the Central government, he said.

Nataraj submitted that the scheme was at a nascent stage and that construction would take several years. The language-related differences could be worked out independently during this period.

He argued that the State was not ready even to identify the land.

Gupta, however, submitted that around 30 acres of land would be required in each district and that identifying land before deciding whether to accept the policy would create difficulties for the State.

The bench clarified that it was not directing the State to acquire land immediately, but only to identify suitable land in its government plan.

Court can't issue mandamus in policy matter : TN

The State vehemently asserted that the judiciary could not issue a mandamus compelling a State to adopt an optional Central government policy.

Gupta argued that education is a subject in the Concurrent List and that the State has the constitutional authority to formulate its own educational policies. He submitted that the Navodaya scheme was not compulsory and that the State was entitled to decide whether to adopt it.

He further argued that directing the State to accept a particular policy would set a dangerous precedent and undermine the federal structure of the Constitution.

Justice Nagarathna, however, questioned the State's resistance to a scheme intended to provide educational opportunities across the country.

"Education is in the Concurrent List. There has to be cooperative federalism. If each State says that I don't accept your policy, what will happen?" the Judge asked.

The bench also observed that the State could continue running its own educational institutions and following its own syllabus, as Navodaya schools would not interfere with those institutions.

Gupta maintained that the issue was not merely one of mindset, but involved the State's constitutional and policy-making authority.

Gupta also stated that the State's educational needs are being properly taken care of, and cited the model schools established by the Government. While acknowledging that Tamil Nadu had better educational facilities when compared to many other States, Justice Nagarathna said that Navodaya schools will be a value addition.

"All the good things that you are doing for education on your state. We also know that in Tamil Nadu education level is high compared to other states. Having something in addition will not put down your standards. Education coming from Delhi will not lower the standards of Chennai that much we know," Justice Nagarathna said.

Advocates G Priyadarshini and Rahul Shyam Bhandari, appearing for Kumari Maha Sabha [the petitioner in the High Court], submitted that the State cannot deny Tamil Nadu students the right to access free education from Navodaya schools. They further submitted that Navodaya schools are functioning in the UT of Puducherry, though it was a Tamil-speaking region.

The hearing ended with the bench prodding the State to be open to Navodaya schools, and urging consultations with the Centre on the contentious points, even though Gupta sternly maintained that the "Court should not get into this debate".

"That perception that you are surrendering to the central govt should not be there," Justice Nagarathna said.

In the order dictated, the bench recorded that the State had cited the change in government and the absence of material progress in discussions with the Centre as reasons for non-compliance with the December 15, 2025 order.

"Be that as it may, we direct the petitioner to comply with our order of 15.12.2025 in so far as identification of the land necessary to establish the school in each district," the order stated.

The Court granted three months for compliance, while directing further consultations between the State and Centre in the meantime.

Case : The State of Tamil Nadu v. Kumari Maha Sabha and others | SLP(c) 33459/2017

Tags: