The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that sought to enforce the three-language formula under the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 in the states of Tamil Nadu, Kerala, and West Bengal.
The bench, led by Justice J.B. Pardiwala, made it clear that the court cannot compel states to implement policies such as the NEP.
Court Refuses To Intervene In State-Level Policy Decisions
In its ruling, the Court explained that it cannot directly force any state to adopt a central policy. Justice Pardiwala stated:
“It (court) cannot directly compel a state to adopt a policy like the National Education Policy 2020. The court may, however, intervene if a state’s action or inaction related to the National Education Policy violates any fundamental rights. We do not propose to examine this issue in this writ petition.”
The bench also noted that the petitioner, G.S. Mani, a lawyer from the BJP, had no direct connection to the issue he was raising. Despite his origins in Tamil Nadu, Mani resides in New Delhi, leading the Court to dismiss the case on the grounds of lack of standing.
Petitioner’s Arguments
In his PIL, Mani argued that the failure of Tamil Nadu, Kerala, and West Bengal to adopt the 3-language policy as outlined in NEP 2020 would harm public interest and infringe upon citizens’ rights. He claimed that the refusal to sign an MOU with the Centre was a violation of the constitutional rights of schoolchildren, especially those from disadvantaged communities.
The petition stressed the importance of the NEP in improving the quality of education and providing free access to all Indian languages, particularly for children from scheduled castes, tribes, and other backward communities. Mani argued that these states, by not implementing the policy, were not fulfilling their legal and constitutional obligations to ensure education rights for their citizens.
States’ Opposition To The 3-Language Formula
The PIL pointed out that while most Indian states have adopted the NEP 2020’s tri-language curriculum, Tamil Nadu, Kerala, and West Bengal have resisted. The opposition stems largely from concerns over the potential promotion of Hindi at the expense of regional languages.
The petition argued that these states’ refusal to accept the formula was politically motivated, citing the claim that the three-language policy, especially its emphasis on Hindi, was being pushed unfairly. Tamil Nadu, in particular, has a long-standing resistance to policies it perceives as promoting Hindi over regional languages.
Centre Defends NEP As A Step Toward Multilingualism
In defense, the Centre stated that the NEP is aimed at promoting multilingualism and that it provides flexibility for states to choose how they implement the language curriculum. The government maintains that the policy is not about imposing Hindi, but rather about encouraging the study of multiple languages to enhance educational opportunities for all students.
Despite these assurances, the petition argued that the refusal of these states to adopt the policy amounts to a denial of a fundamental right to education, which is guaranteed under the Constitution.
What’s Next?
With the Supreme Court’s dismissal of the PIL, the three-language formula remains a voluntary aspect of the NEP for Tamil Nadu, Kerala, and West Bengal. The case will not be revisited unless new grounds are presented, particularly relating to violations of fundamental rights. As debates over regional autonomy and language policy continue, the implementation of the NEP’s language provisions will likely remain a contentious issue in Indian politics.
Read More: Supreme Court, Delhi High Court, States High Court, International
