Vijay govt opposes Navodaya schools over three-language policy, Supreme Court asks TN to change its approach towards teaching Hindi in schools

Supreme Court has given Tamil Nadu three months to identify land for Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalayas in every district, while asking the Centre and state to continue discussions over language policy and other differences.

Tamil Nadu government and the Centre are at odds over the proposed establishment of Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalayas in the state, with language policy emerging as one of the main points of disagreement.

Supreme Court on September 17 directed Tamil Nadu to comply with its earlier order to identify suitable land in every district for the schools. The bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Augustine George Masih also asked the Centre and the state to continue discussions on the differences surrounding the scheme.


The dispute involves Tamil Nadu's two-language policy, the three-language framework followed by Navodaya schools and the respective powers of the Centre and states over education.

Why Tamil Nadu is opposing Navodaya schools

Tamil Nadu's objection is primarily linked to the language framework attached to the Navodaya scheme.

During the September 17 hearing, senior advocate Jaideep Gupta, appearing for the state, said Tamil Nadu was not opposed to the teaching of Hindi as such. He said the state's concern was with the language policy followed in Navodaya schools, particularly the role of Hindi in the higher classes.

Tamil Nadu follows a two-language policy involving Tamil and English. The state's position, set out in an earlier affidavit, is that the three-language formula associated with Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalayas does not fit with the state's existing statutory framework. The state referred to the Tamil Nadu Tamil Learning Act, 2006, which gives legal backing to its language policy.

The state has also raised financial and administrative concerns during the proceedings. On September 17, Gupta referred to an alleged delay in the release of ₹5,000 crore in education funds and said the state had concerns about taking on additional financial obligations. The Supreme Court said the financial issue and the language issue could be dealt with separately through discussions.

The Tamil Nadu government has also argued that the court should not compel the state to adopt a central scheme that is not compulsory. Gupta said education is a subject in the Concurrent List and questioned whether a court could issue a mandamus requiring the state to implement such a policy.

What the Constitution says about education

Education is listed under the Concurrent List in the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution.

The Concurrent List is the part of the Constitution where both Parliament and state legislatures have the power to make laws on subjects listed there. Education is one of those subjects.

This is different from the Union List and State List, where law-making powers are allocated primarily to Parliament or state legislatures respectively. The Constitution also contains provisions dealing with situations where laws made by Parliament and state legislatures overlap or conflict.

The fact that education is in the Concurrent List therefore provides the constitutional background to the present dispute. It does not by itself mean that either the Centre or a state has exclusive control over every aspect of education.

The present case involves a central school scheme, Tamil Nadu's existing education and language framework, and the question of how the two should operate together.

What the Centre says about Navodaya schools

The Centre has taken a different position on the practical implications of establishing the schools.

Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj told the Supreme Court that the state is required to provide land, while the Centre would take care of the remaining expenses, including construction and other requirements. He also said the language-related differences could be discussed separately while the project moves forward.

The Centre has previously told the Supreme Court that in non-Hindi-speaking regions, the medium of instruction in Navodaya schools is primarily the regional language or English.

The Centre's position is therefore that the establishment of Navodaya schools need not mean replacing Tamil Nadu's existing schools or education system.

The petitioner in the original proceedings has also argued that students in Tamil Nadu should not be denied access to Navodaya schools. Lawyers representing Kumari Maha Sabha told the Supreme Court that the schools would provide another avenue for students to access free education. They also pointed out that Navodaya schools are already functioning in Puducherry.

What are Navodaya schools

Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalayas are centrally run residential schools under the Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti. They are intended to provide education to students, particularly those from rural areas, and operate separately from a state's existing school network.

The language structure of these schools is one of the specific issues in the Tamil Nadu dispute.

Tamil Nadu has a two-language policy, while the Navodaya system follows a three-language framework. The state has said that implementing the scheme in its present form would require changes to the framework already applicable in Tamil Nadu.

The Union government has disputed some of the concerns around how languages are taught in Navodaya schools, including by pointing to the use of regional languages or English as the medium of instruction in non-Hindi-speaking states.

What the Supreme Court said

The Supreme Court did not accept Tamil Nadu's request to recall its December 15, 2025 order relating to the identification of land for Navodaya schools.

Instead, the bench gave the state three months to identify suitable land in every district. The court clarified that the immediate direction was to identify land rather than acquire it immediately.

Justice Nagarathna also said Navodaya schools would add educational opportunities without preventing Tamil Nadu from continuing with its existing schools and syllabus. The court stressed the need for the Centre and state to work through the differences rather than treating the two positions as mutually exclusive.

The court referred to cooperative federalism while discussing the fact that education falls under the Concurrent List. The bench also questioned the state government's resistance to a scheme that would operate alongside its existing education system.

At the same time, the court directed the two sides to continue discussions on the language issue. Justice Nagarathna suggested that questions concerning the use of Tamil as a second language could be considered during those discussions.

The case, State of Tamil Nadu v Kumari Maha Sabha and others, will now proceed with the state given three months to identify the required land while consultations between the Centre and Tamil Nadu continue.

Inputs from TOI