Kerala Education Minister N Shamsudheen told the Assembly that the state government cannot unilaterally withdraw from the PM SHRI agreement signed by the previous Left Democratic Front (LDF) government, claiming that only the Union government has the right to terminate the pact. The Minister made the statement while responding to an Adjournment Motion in the Assembly, amid criticism over the newly formed United Democratic Front (UDF) government’s decision to continue with the Union government’s school development scheme.
The PM SHRI (PM Schools for Rising India) scheme had become a point of contention after the Union government withheld funds under the Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA) for states that refused to sign the agreement. The UDF government recently announced that it would constitute a Cabinet sub-committee to study the details of the agreement and hold negotiations on issues including curriculum, while continuing with the scheme.
Reading out from the agreement signed in October 2025, Shamsudheen said, “DOSE&L (Department of School Education and Literacy), MoE (Ministry of Education), GoI (Government of India) reserves the right to rescind, cancel, terminate the agreement in the interest of public by giving a notice of 30 days.”
“In short, only the Union Government has the sole right to withdraw from the agreement. You have handed over the knife and neck to the Union government,” he told the Opposition in the Assembly, alleging that the previous Communist Party of India (Marxist) [CPI(M)]-led government had pushed Kerala into a crisis by signing the PM Shri agreement in a clandestine manner.
“We have not signed any agreement. You have kept everyone in the dark over this agreement. You did not inform the constituents of LDF and kept it a secret. This was done by the former education minister with the support of the then chief minister. They are making allegations to hide their embarrassment,” he told the Opposition.
Responding to the LDF’s claim that it had frozen the agreement before leaving office, Shamsudheen said that the letter sent by the previous government in November 2025 only mentioned that implementation would be kept in abeyance until a committee constituted by the government took a decision. “Where does this mention that the agreement was cancelled?” he asked.
‘PM Shri not implemented in Kerala’
Opposition MLAs, meanwhile, staged a walkout from the Assembly in protest against the Speaker’s decision not to allow an adjournment motion moved by the LDF, seeking suspension of House proceedings to discuss concerns over the UDF government’s decision to continue with the PM Shri scheme.
Before the walkout, Leader of Opposition and former CM Pinarayi Vijayan said that his government had only signed the agreement and had subsequently kept it in abeyance.
“The agreement was signed on October 23, 2025, but as part of a conscious policy decision, the LDF government officially informed the Centre on November 12, 2025, within 20 days, that the MoU was being kept in abeyance. That letter reflected the state's position. No further action was taken thereafter. As a result of that stand, the process came to a halt and the scheme could not be launched in Kerala. That is the fact. PM SHRI has not been implemented in Kerala so far,” Pinarayi said.
He also referred to a letter sent by the Union Education Secretary to the state government on May 8, 2026, asking Kerala to take steps to implement the scheme. “The (current) Education Minister referred to the letter sent by the Union Education Secretary … That letter merely requested the state to take urgent steps to implement the scheme. If the scheme had already been implemented, why would such a request be necessary?” he asked.
Pinarayi alleged that the UDF had made a “shameful surrender” on the PM Shri issue. "Didn't they once say they would throw the scheme into the Arabian Sea if they came to power? Where has that rhetoric gone?” he asked.
CPI leader P Prasad termed the UDF government’s argument that it cannot withdraw from the agreement because the previous government had signed it “absurd.” Citing Article 299 of the Constitution, Prasad argued that only contracts between the Union and state governments that are executed on behalf of the President or Governor are legally binding.