Supreme Court also noted that the petitioner resides in Delhi, and therefore, his plea to enforce the NEP specifically in Tamil Nadu was not considered appropriate.
Published May 10, 2025 | 9:53 AM ⚊ Updated May 10, 2025 | 9:53 AM
The Supreme Court of India. (Creative Commons)
Synopsis: The Supreme Court dismissed a PIL seeking enforcement of the National Education Policy (NEP) in Tamil Nadu, stating that states cannot be compelled to implement it. The bench found no violation of fundamental rights and deemed the petition inappropriate, as the petitioner, a BJP member from Delhi, lacked direct standing in Tamil Nadu’s policy decisions.
The Supreme Court on Friday, 9 May, dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that sought directions to enforce the National Education Policy (NEP) in Tamil Nadu.
The petition was filed by advocate GS Mani, a member of BJP, who argued that the new NEP, which includes several key features, has not yet been implemented by Tamil Nadu and a few other states. He requested the court to issue appropriate directions to enforce the policy in these states.
The matter was heard by a bench comprising Justices BV Nagarathna and Augustine George Masih. After reviewing the petition, the bench observed that the question of whether a state chooses to adopt the NEP is a complex issue. The judges remarked that no state can be compelled to implement the NEP directly.
The bench further stated that the court can intervene only if the implementation or non-implementation of a policy infringes upon the fundamental rights of citizens. However, in this particular case, the bench found no such grounds to warrant judicial intervention.
According to Livelaw, the court observed, “”Whether the States should adopt the National Education Policy 2020 or not is a vexed issue. The Supreme Court, through Article 32 of the Constitution, can issue directives to ensure that the rights of the citizens are protected. It 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. 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.”
They also noted that the petitioner resides in Delhi, and therefore, his plea to enforce the NEP specifically in Tamil Nadu was not considered appropriate.
Citing these reasons, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition.
