There is an adamancy that Hindi must predominate." Justice Nagarathna said the language issue could be discussed between the Centre and the state."

If you want Tamil as a second language, it is a matter which can be considered," the Judge said, asking the state Secretary to speak to the corresponding Central government Secretary. Gupta said discussions had already taken place but the Centre had remained adamant about Hindi.

He nevertheless agreed to another round of consultations. Court stresses cooperative federalismTamil Nadu also argued that the judiciary could not compel a state to adopt an optional Central government policy through a mandamus.

Gupta submitted that education is in the Concurrent List and that Tamil Nadu has constitutional authority to frame its own education policy. He also argued that the Navodaya scheme was not compulsory.

Justice Nagarathna questioned the consequences of individual states refusing to accept Central policies." Education is in the Concurrent List.

There has to be cooperative federalism. If each State says that I don't accept your policy, what will happen?"

the Judge asked. The bench said Tamil Nadu could continue running its own institutions and following its own syllabus, while Navodaya schools would provide an additional educational option.

The court also rejected the argument that the establishment of Navodaya schools would lower Tamil Nadu's educational standards." We are not alienating you and we are not alienating them.

Some more type of schools come in your state also which will only enhance the high standard which we are aware of. This is not going to lower your standards.

If Navodaya schools were going to lower the standard of education in Tamil Nadu we would have said that irrespective of what you would have said. That is not the case here.

It will provide more opportunity," Justice Nagarathna told Gupta." Ultimately everybody must work together," Justice Nagarathna said.

State raises financial concernsTamil Nadu also raised financial concerns, submitting that the Centre had promised to release Rs 5,000 crore for education but had not done so. Gupta argued that the state could not take on additional financial liabilities when funds under existing schemes had allegedly not been released.

Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj, appearing for the Centre, submitted that the state's primary requirement under the scheme was to provide land, while construction and other expenses would be borne by the Central government. Nataraj said the scheme was at an early stage and construction would take several years, during which the language-related differences could be addressed through discussions.

Gupta, however, said around 30 acres of land would be required in each district and that identifying land before deciding whether to accept the policy would create difficulties. The bench clarified that it was not directing the state to acquire land immediately, but only to identify suitable land in its government plan.

Supreme Court refuses to recall land directionThe Supreme Court had in December 2025 directed Tamil Nadu to identify land required for establishing Navodaya Vidyalayas in every district within six weeks. The state subsequently sought recall of the order.

On Thursday, the bench declined to recall the direction and instead granted the state three months to comply. In its order, the bench recorded that Tamil Nadu had cited the change in government and lack of material progress in discussions with the Centre as reasons for non-compliance."

2025 in so far as identification of the land necessary to establish the school in each district," the order stated. The bench also directed the Centre and Tamil Nadu to continue discussions on the policy while the state works on identifying the land.

Advocates G Priyadarshini and Rahul Shyam Bhandari, appearing for Kumari Maha Sabha, the petitioner before the High Court, argued that Tamil Nadu could not deny students access to free education through Navodaya schools." The Court should not get into this debate," Gupta said during the hearing.

Justice Nagarathna responded: " That perception that you are surrendering to the central govt should not be there."

The list also has Alisha Giri; Brangsa; Chapchingal Pass; Kanishka Peak; Karun Pir mountain; Kuksel; Mart and Giri; Parpik Glacier; Skamri Glacier; Shachmirik P...