The Supreme Court on Monday quizzed the Tamil Nadu government on why it was opposing the establishment of Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalayas (JNVs) in every district [The State Of Tamil Nadu Vs. Kumari Maha Sabha].

The Court remarked that such resistance to a central education scheme was “not in the spirit of federal cooperation".

When told by the State that one of the reasons for its resistance was Hindi imposition, a Bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and R Mahadevan asked the State to stop turning the issue into a political or linguistic dispute and focus instead on the welfare of students.

"We are federal society. Don't convert this into a language matter. Don't suppress an opportunity for rural students," the Court told the State.

When the State's counsel complained of central “imposition” of schemes, Justice Nagarathna reminded the State of its constitutional place within the Union.

“Are you not part of our Republic?” she asked.

The Court was hearing Tamil Nadu’s plea challenging a Madras High Court judgment that had directed it to set up Navodaya Vidyalayas in every district.

Senior Advocate P Wilson, appearing for Tamil Nadu, argued that the State has serious objections to the scheme. He said that the Navodaya model required the State to provide 30 acres of land in every district and to maintain the schools for three years.

The Bench questioned the resistance, observing that education was in the concurrent list and that the Centre’s scheme was aimed at enhancing educational opportunities.

“There is nothing wrong in the Central government wanting to invest in education. Only meritorious students are admitted there. Why do you resist schools? Education is in the concurrent list. This is enhancing standards,” Justice Nagarathna said.

Wilson maintained that Tamil Nadu already has strong public education infrastructure and follows a two-language policy under a State law. He said the Navodaya Vidyalaya scheme envisages a three-language formula that is in conflict with the Tamil Nadu Tamil Learning Act, 2006.

The Court cautioned against politicising the issue.

“Don’t bring in politics into this. You are coming in the way of providing education to meritorious students. What is wrong in having more schools?” Justice Nagarathna demanded.

Wilson replied that the scheme gave States the option to accept or reject participation and that Tamil Nadu’s existing standards were higher than those of Navodaya Vidyalayas.

The Court, however, appeared unconvinced.

When Wilson persisted that Tamil Nadu’s refusal was based on its language policy, Justice Nagarathna said the issue could not be reduced to language politics.

“Why this mental block? If economically backward students are given the opportunity, why are you preventing that?” she asked.

Wilson insisted that the State could not be compelled to provide land or financial support for a scheme that conflicted with its policies.

“They want to impose Hindi on us,” he said.

Justice Nagarathna responded that the State’s language law would be respected but could not be used to deny children educational opportunities.

“If you have a language policy, you say so, we will modify the scheme accordingly. But don’t suppress an opportunity for rural students,” she said.

The Court then noted that the Union Government had already sanctioned 650 Navodaya schools across the country, with Tamil Nadu being the only State not to cooperate.

It accordingly directed Tamil Nadu to identify land required for establishing Navodaya Vidyalayas in each district within six weeks.

“We modify the interim order of stay granted by this Court on 11 December 2017 by directing the petitioner-State to identify the requisite extent of land necessary for establishing a Navodaya Vidyalaya in each district. The said exercise shall be carried out within a period of six weeks and a status report shall be placed before this Court,” the Court said in its order.

The Court stressed that its directions were limited to initiating the process and not enforcing the full scheme.

“We are just asking for an exercise. We are not laying any foundation stone today,” Justice Nagarathna clarified.

Wilson insisted that the State could not be compelled to provide resources for a central scheme, adding that the Centre still owed Tamil Nadu ₹3,548 crore under another education programme, the Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan.

Justice Nagarathna said both governments should resolve such issues through dialogue, not confrontation.

“We are a federal society. You discuss all this with them. Don’t convert this into a language matter. If you come one step forward, they will also come one step forward,” the judge said.

Wilson said that the Navodaya system amounted to thrusting the Hindi language on Tamil Nadu.

Justice Nagarathna replied that the Court was not dealing with the language issue.

“We have said nothing on the language. There can’t be such an adversarial attitude. This is in the interest of the students," she clarified.

The Court then asked representatives of the Tamil Nadu government and the Union Ministry of Education to hold consultations on implementing the scheme and posted the matter after 6 weeks.

In its earlier judgment, the Madras High Court had ruled that Navodaya Vidyalayas did not violate the Tamil Nadu Tamil Learning Act and that the State’s blanket refusal curtailed students’ right to choose educational institutions. It had directed the State to provide temporary accommodation for 240 students in each district within two months.

Tamil Nadu then approached the Supreme Court asserting that education policy falls within its exclusive domain and that its two-language policy was incompatible with the Navodaya model.

Justice Nagarathna closed today's hearing with a conciliatory note, urging cooperation rather than confrontation.

“You can’t say ‘my State, my State’. This is a federal country. Don’t lose this opportunity. It’s an opportunity for your students,” she said.