The Supreme Court’s Ruling on the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020: A Constitutional and Policy Analysis

Abstract

On May 12, 2025, the Supreme Court of India dismissed a petition seeking to compel the states of Tamil Nadu, Kerala, and West Bengal to implement the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020, including its three-language formula. The court clarified that its jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution is limited to protecting fundamental rights and does not extend to requiring state governments to adopt specific policies. This ruling underscores the delicate balance of federalism in India’s constitutional framework and highlights the contentious nature of NEP 2020 in certain states. This article examines the Supreme Court’s decision, the concerns raised by various states regarding NEP 2020, and the implications for educational policy and federal governance in India.

1. Introduction

The National Education Policy (NEP) 2020, approved by the Union Cabinet on July 29, 2020, is a comprehensive framework to transform India’s education system. It proposes reforms such as a 5+3+3+4 curricular structure, emphasis on early childhood education, vocational training, and the three-language formula, which encourages teaching Hindi, English, and a regional language. While the policy has been lauded for its progressive vision, it has faced resistance from several states, particularly those governed by non-Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) parties, such as Tamil Nadu, Kerala, and West Bengal. These states have raised concerns over linguistic imposition, federal overreach, and practical implementation challenges. The Supreme Court’s recent ruling on May 12, 2025, addressed a plea by advocate GS Mani to enforce NEP 2020 in these states, reinforcing the constitutional limits of judicial intervention in policy matters. This article provides an analysis of the ruling, the concerns of various states, and the broader implications for India’s federal structure.

2. The Supreme Court’s Ruling: Constitutional Context

The Supreme Court’s bench, comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan, dismissed the petition because the court’s powers under Article 32 protect fundamental rights and do not extend to compelling states to adopt specific policies. Article 32 of the Constitution empowers the Supreme Court of India to issue writs for enforcing fundamental rights enshrined in Part III of the Constitution. The court emphasized that policy decisions, such as adopting NEP 2020, fall within the domain of state governments, which have significant autonomy over education as a subject under the Concurrent List (List III, Seventh Schedule). The bench noted that judicial intervention would be warranted only if a state’s actions or inactions violated fundamental or legal rights, which was not demonstrated in this case. Additionally, the court questioned the petitioner’s locus standi, as he lacked a direct stake in the matter, residing in New Delhi and not directly affected by the non-implementation in the concerned states.

This ruling aligns with the principles of federalism, which grant states considerable discretion in education matters. It also reflects judicial restraint in policy matters, consistent with precedents such as State of Himachal Pradesh v. Union of India (2011), where the court declined to issue directives on policy implementation absent a clear violation of constitutional rights.

3. Concerns of States Regarding NEP 2020

Several states have reservations about NEP 2020, citing linguistic, cultural, federal, and practical concerns. Below is a detailed examination of the issues raised by key states:

3.1 Tamil Nadu

Concern: Linguistic Imposition and the Three-Language Formula
Tamil Nadu has been a vocal critic of NEP 2020, particularly its three-language formula, which recommends teaching Hindi, English, and a regional language. The state has historically opposed Hindi imposition, viewing it as a threat to Tamil identity and linguistic diversity. Tamil Nadu follows a two-language policy (Tamil and English), and political parties, including the ruling Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK), argue that mandating Hindi undermines the state’s cultural heritage.

Issue: The state perceives the three-language formula as a covert attempt to promote Hindi, violating the linguistic autonomy of non-Hindi-speaking states. Tamil Nadu’s Education Minister, Anbil Mahesh Poyyamozhi, has stated that the state will not adopt NEP 2020 in its current form and has instead proposed a State Education Policy (SEP) tailored to local needs.

Additional Concerns: Given resource constraints, Tamil Nadu has also raised concerns about the feasibility of implementing NEP’s ambitious reforms, such as teacher training and infrastructure upgrades.

3.2 Kerala

Concern: Federal Overreach and Centralization
Kerala, governed by the Left Democratic Front (LDF), has expressed apprehension about NEP 2020’s potential to centralize education, a subject traditionally under state control. The state prides itself on its high literacy rates and robust public education system, and it fears that NEP’s standardized framework may dilute its achievements.

Issue: Kerala’s Education Minister, V. Sivankutty, has argued that NEP 2020’s one-size-fits-all approach disregards regional disparities and local educational models. The state is particularly concerned about provisions that promote private sector involvement in education, which could undermine Kerala’s public education system.

Additional Concerns: Kerala has questioned the financial implications of NEP 2020, as the policy’s implementation requires significant investment, which the central government has not adequately addressed.

3.3 West Bengal

Concern: Cultural and Political Autonomy
Under the Trinamool Congress (TMC), West Bengal has resisted NEP 2020, viewing it as an encroachment on the state’s cultural and political autonomy. The state’s Education Minister, Bratya Basu, has criticized the policy for its perceived alignment with the BJP’s ideological agenda, particularly the emphasis on Hindi and Sanskrit.

Issue: West Bengal argues that NEP 2020’s three-language formula does not accommodate the state’s linguistic diversity, where Bengali is the dominant language. The state also opposes the policy’s emphasis on centralized entrance examinations, such as the Common University Entrance Test (CUET), which it believes disadvantages students from state boards.

Additional Concerns: West Bengal has highlighted the lack of consultation with states during NEP’s formulation, accusing the central government of bypassing federal principles.

3.4 Other States

• Karnataka: The Congress-led government in Karnataka has raised concerns about the three-language formula and the inclusion of Sanskrit, arguing that it marginalizes Kannada and other regional languages. The state has also criticized the policy’s reliance on digital infrastructure, which is challenging in rural areas.
• Punjab: Punjab, governed by the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), has expressed concerns about the financial burden of implementing NEP 2020 and the potential erosion of state control over education.
• Odisha: The Biju Janata Dal (BJD) government in Odisha has adopted a cautious approach, implementing parts of NEP 2020 while resisting provisions that conflict with local priorities, such as the three-language formula.

Common Concerns Across States

1. Linguistic Imposition: Non-Hindi-speaking states perceive the three-language formula as a means to promote Hindi, threatening regional languages and cultural identities.
2. Federal Autonomy: States view NEP 2020 as an overreach by the central government, undermining their authority over education.
3. Resource Constraints: The policy’s ambitious reforms require significant financial and infrastructural investment, which many states find impractical.
4. Lack of Consultation: States have criticized the central government for inadequate consultation during NEP’s formulation, leading to a trust deficit.
5. Ideological Concerns: Some states, particularly those governed by opposition parties, perceive NEP 2020 as aligned with the BJP’s political and cultural agenda.

4. Broader Implications

The Supreme Court’s ruling has significant implications for India’s federal structure and educational policy:

• Federalism and Education: The decision reinforces states’ autonomy in education, affirming that policy adoption is a state prerogative. This aligns with the Concurrent List framework, where both the center and states have legislative power over education.
• Judicial Restraint: The ruling exemplifies judicial restraint in policy matters, limiting the court’s role to constitutional oversight rather than policy enforcement.
• NEP 2020’s Future: The resistance from states highlights the challenges of implementing a uniform education policy in a diverse nation. The central government may need to adopt a more collaborative approach, addressing state-specific concerns and providing financial support.
• Linguistic Diversity: The controversy over the three-language formula underscores the sensitivity of linguistic policies in India. A flexible approach, allowing states to adapt the formula to local contexts, may be necessary to ensure broader acceptance.

5. Concluding Observations

The Supreme Court’s dismissal of the plea to enforce NEP 2020 in Tamil Nadu, Kerala, and West Bengal underscores the limits of judicial intervention in policy matters and the importance of federal autonomy in India’s constitutional framework. The concerns raised by states—from linguistic imposition to federal overreach and resource constraints—highlight the complexities of implementing a uniform education policy in a diverse nation. For NEP 2020 to succeed, the central government must engage in meaningful dialogue with states, addressing their concerns and fostering a collaborative approach. The ruling serves as a reminder that education, while a national priority, must respect India’s federal and cultural diversity.

Suggested Readings

• India Today. (2025, May 12). Supreme Court says states cannot be compelled to adopt National Education Policy.
• Ministry of Education, Government of India. (2020). National Education Policy 2020.
• Constitution of India, Article 32 and Seventh Schedule, List III.
• State of Himachal Pradesh v. Union of India, (2011) 13 SCC 344.
• News reports and statements from state education ministers (Tamil Nadu, Kerala, West Bengal, Karnataka, Punjab, Odisha) as cited in various media sources.

Education for All in India