In an important order highlighting cooperative federalism and prioritising students’ educational interests, the Supreme Court on December 15, 2025, directed the Union Government and the Tamil Nadu Government to hold joint consultations on the establishment of Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalayas (JNVs) in the State.
The Court also directed authorities to ascertain the extent of land required in each district of Tamil Nadu for setting up JNVs and to submit a report before it.
The matter was heard by a Bench comprising Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice R. Mahadevan, while adjudicating an appeal filed by the State of Tamil Nadu against a Madras High Court judgment directing establishment of a Navodaya Vidyalaya in every district of the State.
Background of the Dispute
Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalayas are centrally sponsored residential schools aimed at providing quality education to meritorious rural students, particularly those from economically weaker sections.
Tamil Nadu has historically resisted the establishment of JNVs, citing:
- Its statutory two-language policy (Tamil and English), and
- Objections to the three-language formula followed in Navodaya Vidyalayas, which includes Hindi.
The Madras High Court, however, directed the State to establish JNVs in all districts, prompting the State Government to approach the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court’s Directions
The Supreme Court issued *limited, exploratory directions, making it clear that it was *not mandating immediate establishment of schools.
The key directions include:
- Joint consultation between the Union Government and the Tamil Nadu Government on the issue of establishing JNVs.
- Assessment of land requirement, including the extent of land needed in each district for setting up Navodaya Vidyalayas.
- Submission of a report to the Supreme Court after the consultations.
Justice Nagarathna clarified that the exercise was purely exploratory, observing:
“We are only making an exercise. We are not asking you to put a foundation stone today.”
Emphasis on Cooperative Federalism
Justice B.V. Nagarathna made strong observations on the need for federal dialogue rather than confrontation, cautioning against a rigid “my State, my State” attitude.
She observed that India functions as a federal society, where dialogue and compromise are essential:
“There must be a federal discussion. You come one step, they will also come one step. They may even come two steps.”
Highlighting Tamil Nadu’s socio-economic achievements, Justice Nagarathna remarked that the State should see the proposal as an opportunity rather than an imposition, especially for rural students.
Language Policy Concerns Can Be Raised: Supreme Court
Addressing Tamil Nadu’s principal objection regarding language policy, the Court expressly stated that the State is free to place its two-language formula before the Centre during consultations.
Justice Nagarathna observed:
“You can say this is our language policy. They will look into it. They cannot discredit your policy.”
The Court emphasised that the issue should not be converted into a language dispute, noting that the focus must remain on educational access for rural students.
State Government’s Submissions
Senior Advocate P. Wilson, appearing for Tamil Nadu, reiterated the State’s objections:
- JNVs follow a three-language formula, conflicting with Tamil Nadu’s two-language policy, which is backed by statute.
- The State would be required to provide approximately 30 acres of land per district, along with bearing significant infrastructure costs.
- Tamil Nadu had experienced difficulties with the Centre, with pending dues exceeding ₹3,000 crores under the Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan.
The State also alleged that the NGO which filed the original petition before the Madras High Court was a “set-up” entity seeking a backdoor entry to impose JNVs in the State.
Additionally, it was argued that the move was part of an attempt to impose Hindi.
Court Rejects Adversarial Approach
Justice Nagarathna firmly rejected the adversarial framing of the issue and cautioned against politicising it:
“Don’t make it into a language issue. We are a federal society. You are part of the Republic.”
When the State raised concerns about Hindi imposition, the Bench clarified:
“We are not on Hindi. We are on rural students getting the education.”
Justice R. Mahadevan echoed this sentiment, stating that all issues—financial, linguistic, and administrative—could be addressed during consultations.
Advice to Avoid Media Confrontation
In a notable observation, Justice Nagarathna advised both the Union and State governments to avoid public statements and media battles, urging them to engage directly.
She remarked:
“Please don’t talk through press or through the media. Go face to face and go on talk to them.”
The Court emphasised that constructive engagement between authorities was essential to resolve the issue amicably.
Directions Issued in Students’ Interest
The Supreme Court made it explicit that its directions were issued solely in the interest of students, particularly those eligible for admission to Navodaya Vidyalayas.
The Court observed:
“We have passed the aforesaid directions only in the interest of those students who are entitled to be admitted to said schools in the State of Tamil Nadu.”
This clarification underscores that the Court was not compelling policy changes, but facilitating dialogue to explore possibilities beneficial to students.
Legal and Constitutional Significance
The order is significant on several counts:
- It reinforces the principle of cooperative federalism, encouraging dialogue over litigation.
- The Court carefully balanced State autonomy in education policy with national educational objectives.
- It avoided issuing a mandatory directive, respecting the State’s concerns while ensuring that students’ interests remain central.
- The observations discourage language polarisation and reframe the issue as one of educational access and equity.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s order in the Navodaya Vidyalaya matter reflects a measured judicial approach, prioritising federal cooperation and students’ welfare over adversarial posturing.
By directing consultations rather than imposing outcomes, the Court has left room for negotiated solutions, allowing Tamil Nadu to protect its language policy while exploring opportunities to enhance rural education.
The outcome of the consultations between the Centre and the State will now be closely watched, as it may shape the future of central-state collaboration in the education sector.
Also Read
Supreme Court Encourages Virtual Hearings Amid Severe Air Quality in Delhi
