Tamil Nadu sues Centre in Supreme Court over non-disbursal of ₹2,000-crore education funds
The suit, represented by senior advocate P. Wilson and drafted by advocates Richardson Wilson and Apoorv Malhotra, said the 'glaring and apparent reason' for the non-disbursement of Samagra Shiksha Scheme funds was 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.
Also read: PM SHRI, NEP 2020 and Tamil Nadu: Politics looms over an education dispute
The suit, filed through Tamil Nadu State counsel Sabarish Subramanian, submitted 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 (education). The Union Government seeks to coerce 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 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.
Also read: Over 90% in Hindi-belt States speak only one language, rest of India is more bilingual: Data
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 crore as the total outlay for expenditure under the Samagra Shiksha Scheme.
The State 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 ₹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 M.K. 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.
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.
Also read: How the two-language policy officially came into force in the State of Madras
The State contended that Clause 4.13 of the NEP-2020 recommended 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 underscored.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Mint
24 minutes ago
- Mint
Stray dogs case: 71% support Supreme Court order, 24% oppose it, says survey
A Local Circle survey revealed that 71 percent of the total respondents "fully supported' the latest Supreme Court order of removing all stray dogs from Delhi NCR within 8 weeks and moving them into shelters. Only 24 percent of respondents said they "don't support' the order and 5 percent of respondents did not give a clear answer. The survey said the result clearly showed that a large majority of residents of Delhi NCR "are in favour of their municipality executing the two judge bench order." The Local Circle's survey received 12,816 responses from residents of Delhi, Gurugram, Noida, Faridabad and Ghaziabad. As many as 62 percent respondents were men, while 38 percent respondents were women. The Supreme Court on Thursday, 14 August, reserved an order on a prayer seeking an interim stay on the 11 August order, in which the two-judge bench ordered shifting Delhi-NCR stray dogs to shelter homes. During the hearing, the Supreme Court asked local authorities about their position on implementing the Animal Birth Control rules. The three-judge bench headed by Justice Vikram Nath said, "The whole problem is because of inaction of local authorities". The bench, also comprising Justices Sandeep Mehta and N V Anjaria, said everyone who has moved the apex court and filed intervention will have to own responsibility. The hearing on Thursday followed widespread protests against the Supreme Court's earlier order directing the blanket removal of stray dogs from all Delhi—NCR areas. The Supreme Court had passed a slew of directions on August 11 while hearing a suo motu case initiated on July 28 over stray dog bites leading to rabies, particularly among children, in the national capital On August 11, the two-judge bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan observed instances of dog bites had given rise to an 'extremely grim' situation and ordered the permanent relocation of all strays in Delhi-NCR 'at the earliest."
Hans India
24 minutes ago
- Hans India
Stray Dog Matter Set for Fresh Hearing by Supreme Court Bench
The matter was taken up by Chief Justice of India B R Gavai on Wednesday from the two-judge bench which on Tuesday ordered pan-India culling of strays across the National Capital Region (NCR). National Capital Region (NCR) cities' streets, and ordered Supreme Court hearing of the matter on Thursday before a 3-judge Supreme Court bench led by Justice Vikram Nath. Order on removing all strays from Delhi, NCR withdrawn On August 11, a bench of Justice J B Pardiwala had ordered the Delhi government and civic bodies in NCR to resolve the stray dog issue India by capturing the dogs from Delhi, Ghaziabad, Noida, Faridabad, Gurgaon and its outskirts and shifting them to any shelter home or pound within a specified timeframe. Acting on the representations of two counsels - one of them on grounds that the order appeared to be in conflict with an earlier SC judgment by a different bench - Following the request of animal control laws activists, a bench led by CJI Gavai on Wednesday withdrew all existing pet control laws from Pardiwala's bench and sent the case for further hearing to the bench of Justices Nath, Sandeep Mehta and N V Anjaria. On May 9 last year, a bench of Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Sanjay Karol passed a detailed order disposing of more than two dozen petitions by Kerala government, Animal Welfare Board, NGOs and animal rights activists who had raised objections over contradictory orders passed by different high courts in the state on the culling of stray dogs. On Wednesday morning, the CJI was told by a counsel that the August 11 order by the Supreme Court was also in conflict with a past Supreme Court order last year which had asked civic bodies to treat the strays with compassion and strictly in accordance with the ABC Rules, 2023. Justice Maheshwari and Justice Karol last year had made it clear that dogs cannot be culled on a large scale and directed that civic authorities must act only with the object and intent of the relevant provisions of the existing laws.
News18
34 minutes ago
- News18
SC quashes actor Darshans interim bail in Renukaswamy murder case
New Delhi [India], August 14 (ANI): The Supreme Court on Thursday cancelled the bail of Kannada actor Darshan Thogudeepa in the Renukaswamy murder case. A bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan quashed the interim bail granted to Darshan by the Karnataka High Court, stating that the bail was granted without adequate consideration of the witness intimidation and other Karnataka government had filed a plea in the apex court against Darshan's bail the decision, Advocate DL Chidananda, representing the State government in the case, said the SC stated that the Karnataka HC's decision did not follow the principles of granting Chidananda told ANI, 'The Supreme Court said that the High Court has not followed the principles of law which apply for granting bail. It also reiterated that the rule of law prevails in the country and, however influential an individual may be, they must be treated in accordance with the law."Congress leader Rizwan Arshad said that the State government has built up a 'crystal clear" case against the actor, so they had to appeal against the Karnataka HC's order.'They have built up a crystal clear case. Despite that, he got bail… As a government, we had to appeal against the bail, and that's what we did," Arshad Chief Minister's legal advisor, AS Ponnanna, said that granting Darshan bail would have hampered the investigation and said, 'The state government and the prosecution agency were vindicated… It was the state government's decision that, in a case like this, where a serious offence has been registered, granting him bail would hamper the investigation and trial, as he is a powerful person. They did not want him to use his muscle to derail the prosecution's case."Darshan was named in the chargesheet in the Renukaswamy murder case, where the 33-year-old resident of Chitradurga was murdered. The victim's remains were discovered in Bengaluru's Kamakshipalya on June 9, 2024. (ANI)
