The Supreme Court, on Friday, dismissed a public interest plea (PIL) seeking directions to the governments of Tamil Nadu, Kerala and West Bengal to implement the three-language formula as proposed under the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020.

Declining to entertain the PIL by a BJP-aligned lawyer G S Mani, a bench of Justice J B Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra said the court cannot compel states to adopt a national policy unless a fundamental right is demonstrably violated. “It (the 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 said in its order dismissing the PIL.

Advertisement

The top court also questioned the bona fides of the petitioner, noting that although he hails from Tamil Nadu, he resides in New Delhi and appears to have no direct interest in the matter. “We believe that the petitioner has nothing to do with the cause he proposes to espouse. Although he may be from the state of Tamil Nadu, yet on his own admission, he is residing in New Delhi. In such circumstances, this petition stands dismissed,” the bench stated.

The PIL by the BJP-aligned lawyer G S Mani, had argued that non-implementation of NEP 2020 by the three states infringes upon citizens’ fundamental rights, particularly the right to education. The petitioner had sought directions for these states to implement the NEP and enter into a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with the Central government for its enforcement.

He had contended that the three-language policy is crucial for inclusive and equitable education, especially for children from Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and economically backward sections. He alleged that political motives were preventing the implementation of the policy, particularly by the Tamil Nadu government, which has persistently opposed what it terms as “Hindi imposition”.

The Central government, defending the NEP, maintained that the policy promotes multilingualism and offers flexibility to states and learners. The Tamil Nadu government, however, reiterated its objection, arguing that the three-language formula unfairly pressures non-Hindi-speaking states and undermines linguistic federalism.

In its response to the petition by Mani, Tamil Nadu cited historical opposition to similar policies dating back to the anti-Hindi agitations and reiterated its firm stance against any indirect attempt to impose Hindi through educational frameworks.

The bench, while refusing to intervene, observed that policymaking and adoption fall within the executive and legislative domains of states, and judicial intervention is limited to cases where constitutional rights are demonstrably affected.

The three-language policy proposed in the NEP 2020 encourages students to learn three languages, with at least two of them being native to India, promoting both national unity and linguistic diversity. Tamil Nadu, which follows a two-language formula, has remained vocal in rejecting any deviation.