“People in Chennai should not alienate Delhi and vice versa,” the Supreme Court observed, invoking cooperative federalism as it urged Tamil Nadu to reconsider its opposition to Navodaya schools, while directing the State to identify land and to resolve its language-policy differences with the Centre through dialogue.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court has directed the Tamil Nadu government to comply with its earlier order requiring the identification of land in each district for establishing Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalayas, while urging the State and the Centre to resolve their differences over the associated language policy through negotiation, and invoking the principle of cooperative federalism to prod the State to shed its resistance to the Central scheme [The State of Tamil Nadu v. Kumari Maha Sabha and Others].
A Bench of Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Augustine George Masih was hearing Tamil Nadu’s plea challenging a 2017 direction of the Madras High Court to establish Navodaya schools in every district. The Court granted the State three months to identify suitable land and directed representatives of the State and Central governments to hold further discussions on the policy, posting the matter for December 14.
‘Chennai shouldn’t alienate Delhi and vice versa’
Through the hearing, Justice Nagarathna emphasised the need for cooperative federalism, observing 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.
Acknowledging the State’s strong educational record, the Court sought to reassure Tamil Nadu that the Central scheme would be an addition rather than a threat:
“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.”
“Ultimately everybody must work together,” the judge added, urging the two governments to engage in discussions. As the State’s counsel maintained that the “Court should not get into this debate,” the Bench sought to allay the concern underlying the State’s resistance: “That perception that you are surrendering to the central govt should not be there,” Justice Nagarathna observed.
Tamil Nadu’s objections: language, finances and federalism
Senior Advocate Jaideep Gupta, appearing for Tamil Nadu, told the Court that the newly formed State government was seeking recall of the earlier order, which had been passed when the previous government was in power. He clarified that the State was not opposed to the establishment of schools or to the teaching of Hindi as such, but objected to the language policy associated with the Navodaya scheme, contending that Hindi was being insisted upon as the predominant language in the higher classes, which raised concerns in a State where Tamil is statutorily required to be taught. The State had earlier filed an affidavit setting out its opposition, chiefly on the ground of the three-language formula.
The State also raised financial concerns, submitting that the Centre had promised to release Rs 5,000 crore for education but had not done so, and that the State could not take on additional financial liabilities when funds under existing schemes had allegedly not been released. On the constitutional plane, Gupta argued that education falls in the Concurrent List, that the State has the authority to formulate its own educational policies, and that the Navodaya scheme is optional. He submitted that the judiciary could not issue a mandamus compelling a State to adopt an optional Central policy, and that directing the State to accept a particular policy would set a “dangerous precedent” and undermine the federal structure.
The Centre: ‘only land is to be provided by the State’
Additional Solicitor General K.M. Nataraj, for the Centre, submitted that the only requirement from the State under the scheme was to provide land, with construction and other expenses to be borne by the Central government. He said the scheme was at a nascent stage, that construction would take several years, and that the language-related differences could be worked out independently in the meantime, arguing that the State was not ready even to identify the land.
The State responded that around 30 acres would be required in each district, and that identifying land before deciding whether to accept the policy would create difficulties. The Bench clarified that it was not directing the State to acquire land immediately, but only to identify suitable land in its government plan. Counsel for the original petitioner, the Kumari Maha Sabha, submitted that the State could not deny Tamil Nadu students access to free education at Navodaya schools, and pointed out that such schools function in the Tamil-speaking Union Territory of Puducherry.
The cooperative-federalism question
At the doctrinal heart of the exchange lay the tension between a State’s autonomy over education, a Concurrent List subject, and the Court’s appeal to cooperative federalism. Questioning the State’s resistance to a scheme meant to expand educational access, Justice Nagarathna asked: “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 Bench observed that the State could continue running its own institutions and syllabus, and that Navodaya schools would not interfere with them, but would be “a value addition.”
On the language dispute specifically, the Court suggested a negotiated middle path, indicating that the State’s demand could be accommodated: “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 Secretary. The Court treated the budgetary and language questions as distinct matters, both capable of resolution through dialogue rather than confrontation.
Why the case matters
The proceedings sit at the intersection of federalism, education policy and the limits of judicial power, and they capture a live constitutional debate. Education being on the Concurrent List, both the Union and the States can legislate and frame policy, and the case squarely raises the question the State pressed: whether a court can, consistent with the federal structure, direct a State to implement an optional Central scheme it has chosen not to adopt. The State’s argument that a mandamus to accept a particular policy would undermine federal autonomy is a serious constitutional contention; the Court’s counter, that cooperative federalism requires the Union and the States to work together and that additional schools would only add to opportunity, reflects the equally established principle that federalism in India is cooperative rather than adversarial.
The dispute is also inseparable from the wider, and politically charged, controversy over the three-language formula and the place of Hindi in Tamil Nadu, a subject on which the State has historically taken a firm position. Significantly, the Court did not rule on these contested questions; it declined to adjudicate the policy debate, confined its direction to the identification of land in compliance with its earlier order, and pushed both governments toward negotiation, including on the possibility of Tamil as a second language. The matter now returns in December, with the substantive questions of federal power and language policy still to be worked out, ideally, in the Court’s framing, by agreement rather than by judicial fiat. Nothing has been finally decided on the merits of the State’s challenge.
Case Title: The State of Tamil Nadu v. Kumari Maha Sabha and Others [SLP(C) 33459/2017]
Bench: Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Augustine George Masih
Date of Hearing: September 17, 2026
![[BREAKING] RG Kar Rape Case | "Return to Work, No Action Will be Taken": CJI Assures Protesting Doctors](https://i0.wp.com/lawchakra.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/image-270.png?resize=420%2C345&ssl=1)
