The Supreme Court on September 17 declined Tamil Nadu’s plea to recall its earlier direction to identify land for Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalayas (JNVs) in every district, giving the state another three months to comply.
A Bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Augustine George Masih also urged Tamil Nadu and the Centre to resolve differences over the schools through dialogue and cooperative federalism.
During the hearing, Justice Nagarathna said, “It can’t be that Hindi will not be taught in the soil of Tamil Nadu,” while stressing that the proposed schools would provide an additional educational opportunity rather than undermine the state’s existing system.
Tamil Nadu, however, maintained that its objection is rooted in its statutory two-language policy and concerns over the three-language formula followed by JNVs. Senior Advocate Jaideep Gupta argued that the scheme could conflict with Tamil Nadu’s policy and questioned whether the court could compel the state to adopt an optional central scheme.
The Centre, represented by Additional Solicitor General K.M. Nataraj, said the state’s principal responsibility would be to provide land, while the Union government would meet the remaining requirements. The court has asked both sides to continue discussions, with the matter listed next on December 14, 2026.
A Language Dispute At Heart
The latest hearing brings the language question at the centre of the long-running Navodaya dispute into sharper focus. Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalayas are centrally funded, co-educational residential schools administered by the Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti under the Union Ministry of Education.
The scheme follows a three-language formula comprising the regional language, English and Hindi. Official Navodaya material says students generally enter at Class VI, with instruction initially provided through the mother tongue or regional language, alongside Hindi and English as language subjects.
Tamil Nadu, which has historically followed a two-language approach centred on Tamil and English, argues that implementing the JNV model in its present form would conflict with its statutory framework, including the Tamil Nadu Tamil Learning Act, 2006.
In an affidavit filed before the Supreme Court in March, the state described the three-language formula underlying the JNV scheme as fundamentally incompatible with its policy. During Thursday’s hearing, Gupta said Tamil Nadu was not merely objecting to schools or the teaching of Hindi but to the policy attached to them, arguing that there was an insistence on Hindi becoming predominant.
The Centre has presented a different picture, telling the court that in non-Hindi-speaking regions, the medium of instruction in JNVs for Classes VI to VIII is primarily the regional language or English. The disagreement, therefore, is not only about whether Tamil Nadu should have Navodaya schools, but also about how their language structure would operate within the state.
From 2017 Court Battle To 2026 Order
The litigation dates back to a 2017 Madras High Court case concerning the establishment of JNVs in Tamil Nadu. The High Court had directed the state to facilitate their establishment in every district and held that the schools would not violate Tamil Nadu’s Tamil-learning legislation.
Tamil Nadu subsequently approached the Supreme Court, which stayed the direction in December 2017. The issue remained pending for years before the Supreme Court revisited it in December 2025. On December 15, 2025, the court directed Tamil Nadu to identify land required for establishing JNVs in each district and asked the Centre and state to hold consultations.
Tamil Nadu later sought recall of that direction, arguing, among other things, that the scheme was optional and that education policy falls within the Concurrent List. The state also raised financial concerns during the latest hearing. Gupta said the Centre had not released funds under existing education schemes and argued that imposing additional responsibilities on Tamil Nadu would create further financial liabilities.
The Centre disputed the extent of the state’s responsibility, with Nataraj telling the court that Tamil Nadu only needed to provide land and that the Union government would take care of construction and other requirements.
Media clarified that it was not asking Tamil Nadu to acquire land immediately, but only to identify suitable land in its government plan. It also rejected the request to recall the earlier direction and granted the state three additional months.
The court’s broader message was that disagreements over language and policy should be addressed through negotiations rather than preventing the proposed schools from being considered at all.
The Logical Indian’s Perspective
The Navodaya dispute sits at the intersection of education, language, federalism and the freedom of communities to preserve their linguistic identity. For students and families, the most important question should remain whether they can access quality education without feeling that their mother tongue or cultural identity is being diminished.
At the same time, India’s linguistic diversity means that learning another Indian language need not automatically be viewed as a rejection of one’s own. The Supreme Court has emphasised dialogue between the Centre and Tamil Nadu, while the state has raised substantive concerns about its existing language policy, financial responsibilities and the manner in which the scheme would operate.
Also read: US Senator Warns India, China Over Russian Oil Purchases, Urges Them To Find Other Suppliers
