The State of Tamil Nadu has approached the Supreme Court with an original suit against the Union Government, accusing it of withholding ₹2291 crores due under the Samagra Shiksha Scheme (SSS). The reason cited by the Union for the delay was Tamil Nadu’s refusal to implement the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 and the PM SHRI Schools Scheme.
Filed under Article 131 of the Constitution, the State has sought a court direction to release the pending funds along with interest. Tamil Nadu has also asked the court to declare the Union’s action as “unconstitutional, illegal, unreasonable and arbitrary.”
Read also: Vikas Singh Re-Elected as SCBA President for 2025-26; SC Reserves Key Posts for Women
The plaint mentions that during the Project Approval Board meeting on February 16, 2024, a total outlay of ₹3585.99 crore was approved for Tamil Nadu under the Samagra Shiksha Scheme. As per the 60:40 cost-sharing ratio, the Centre was required to pay ₹2151.59 crore to Tamil Nadu from April 1, 2024. However, no instalment has been released till date.
“The action of the Defendant in linking the Samagra Shiksha Scheme with the PM SHRI Schools Scheme—despite the fact that these two centrally sponsored schemes have no interconnection—is arbitrary and unjustified,” the State said in its petition.
The Centre’s stance is that without signing the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) under the PM SHRI scheme, which mandates NEP-2020 implementation, funds will not be disbursed. Tamil Nadu, however, has opposed NEP 2020, particularly its three-language formula, and has requested changes to the MoU in a letter dated July 6, 2024.
“The NEP-2020 is only a vision document without any binding force. Its implementation cannot be made a condition for releasing funds under the Samagra Shiksha Scheme,” the State argued.
Tamil Nadu maintained that Samagra Shiksha, NEP, and PM SHRI are entirely distinct and should not be linked. It termed the Centre’s move as a “pressure tactic” to force policy implementation.
Read also: Supreme Court Issues Notice on Plea Challenging ED’s Powers Under Section 50 & 63 of PMLA
The State emphasized that the Right to Education Act, 2009 makes financial support under SSS a statutory obligation and cannot be withheld based on non-compliance with unrelated schemes.
“The Plaintiff State is well within its rights to refuse the implementation of the NEP-2020 or the PM SHRI Schools Scheme, as these are not backed by legislation,” the petition states.
Tamil Nadu also cited responses in the Rajya Sabha which reveal that all States except Tamil Nadu, Kerala, and West Bengal have received funds under SSS for 2024–25.
This delay has seriously affected teacher salaries, training, student entitlements like textbooks and uniforms, and infrastructure support in schools and hostels.
The petition also relies on the Union of India vs. Mohit Minerals Pvt. Ltd (2022) case, where the Supreme Court upheld States’ autonomy and their right to politically resist Union policies, reinforcing the federal structure.
The suit was filed through Advocate Sabarish Subramanian and was settled by Senior Advocate P Wilson.
Recently, the Supreme Court ruled that no court can compel a State to implement the NEP, strengthening Tamil Nadu's stance in the ongoing legal tussle.
Case : State of Tamil Nadu v Union of India | Diary No. 28793/2025
