The Supreme Court, on Thursday, September 17, said Tamil Nadu has to change the “mindset” that Hindi cannot be taught on the soil of the state, cautioning that “individual States cannot act like individual countries”. The oral observations by Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Augustine George Masih came during a hearing on the establishment of Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalayas (JNVs) in Tamil Nadu.
The court also gave the state three more months to identify land in every district for setting up the schools, while asking the Union and Tamil Nadu state to resolve their differences through discussions. The dispute, however, goes beyond the question of Hindi. At its core are Tamil Nadu’s two-language policy, the role of the Union in education and whether a state can refuse to implement a centrally funded education scheme on the grounds that it conflicts with its own laws and policies.
Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalayas are co-educational, residential schools run by the Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti under the Union Ministry of Education. The schools were established to provide education to students, particularly those from rural areas. Admission is primarily through an entrance examination for Class VI.
The schools are funded by the Union government, while states are generally expected to provide land for their establishment. The scheme follows a three-language formula involving the regional language, Hindi and English. In Tamil Nadu, the language arrangement has been a key point of contention.
Tamil Nadu has followed a two-language policy of Tamil and English for decades, in contrast to the three-language formula promoted by the Union government. The state’s language policy also has statutory backing through the Tamil Nadu Tamil Learning Act, 2006.
The Act requires Tamil to be taught as a subject from Classes I to X. It provides for Tamil and English to be taught in schools, while students whose mother tongue is neither Tamil nor English can study their mother tongue as an optional subject.
Tamil Nadu has argued that the three-language structure followed by Navodaya schools is incompatible with this framework. In an affidavit filed before the Supreme Court earlier this year, the state described the Navodaya scheme as “fundamentally incompatible” with its two-language policy and said implementing it in its existing form would require a deviation from the Tamil Nadu Tamil Learning Act.
The opposition to Navodaya also has a longer political history. For Tamil Nadu, the two-language policy is closely tied to its long-standing opposition to the imposition of Hindi. The state has therefore been reluctant to introduce a central school system whose language framework includes the three-language formula.
Tamil Nadu’s two-language policy emerged from the state’s resistance to the imposition of Hindi and has remained the position of successive DMK and AIADMK governments. As a result, Tamil Nadu remains the only state without a Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya.
Educationist Prince Gajendra Babu, who has opposed the establishment of Navodaya schools in Tamil Nadu, argues that the issue should not be viewed only through the prism of language. He has described it as a question involving education policy, federalism and the respective roles of the Union and state governments.
Navodaya schools were introduced as part of the Union government’s efforts to provide specialised residential education, particularly for talented students from rural areas. The Union government has traditionally run institutions such as Kendriya Vidyalayas, Sainik Schools and Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalayas, while state governments run the bulk of schools and colleges.
Those who support the establishment of Navodaya schools in the state argue that these institutions provide students, particularly those from rural and economically disadvantaged backgrounds, access to residential education. But for Tamil Nadu the establishment of these institutions are in conflict with the state’s education policy.
This has been one of the central points of disagreement between Tamil Nadu and the Union government.
When the issue came before the Madras High Court in 2017, the Union and the Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti told the court that Tamil could be taught as a compulsory subject in the schools. The court was also informed that Tamil would be the medium of instruction up to Class VIII in Tamil Nadu, with Tamil continuing as the first language in Classes IX and X.
The Madras High Court subsequently held that establishing Navodaya schools would not violate the Tamil Nadu Tamil Learning Act and directed the state to facilitate their establishment in every district. The court noted that the Union had agreed to provide the funds required for construction and infrastructure, while the state would have to provide land.
Tamil Nadu, however, did not facilitate the establishment of the schools and continued to maintain that the scheme was incompatible with its education and language policies.
The dispute eventually reached the Supreme Court. Last year, the court directed Tamil Nadu to identify the land required for establishing Navodaya schools in every district. The state subsequently sought the recall of the order and reiterated its objections to the scheme.
Tamil Nadu has argued that education is in the Concurrent List of the Constitution, giving both the Union and state governments legislative powers over the subject. The state’s position is that the Union government cannot impose an optional central education scheme when its implementation conflicts with existing state legislation and policy.
The state has also questioned whether the judiciary can direct it to adopt a particular education policy.
On September 17, the Supreme Court declined to recall its earlier direction and gave Tamil Nadu another three months to identify suitable land in every district. The bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and AG Masih also asked representatives of the Union and the state to discuss the policy of establishing Navodaya schools in Tamil Nadu.
Justice Nagarathna questioned Tamil Nadu’s opposition to Hindi being taught in the state and said it needed to change its “mindset”. The judge also stressed the need for cooperation between the Union and the state, saying, “Chennai should not alienate Delhi, and vice versa, too.”
Tamil Nadu, however, maintains that its objection is not simply about preventing students from learning Hindi. Its argument is that the state has a legally established education and language policy and that the establishment of a centrally administered school system cannot be separated from questions of federalism and the division of powers.