The ongoing controversy over the three-language formula proposed by the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 has now reached the Supreme Court. A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has been filed, urging the court to direct the governments of Tamil Nadu, Kerala, and West Bengal to implement the central government’s policy. The petitioner, BJP lawyer GS Mani, argued that the refusal of these states to adopt NEP could harm public interest and infringe on citizens’ rights.

Meanwhile, tensions escalated in Tamil Nadu as BJP leaders attempted to carry out a signature campaign in support of NEP. Former Telangana Governor and BJP leader Tamilisai Soundararajan, along with Tamil Nadu BJP President K. Annamalai, participated in the campaign, questioning the ruling DMK’s resistance to the three-language formula. However, Tamil Nadu police intervened and blocked the campaign, leading to a sharp response from the BJP. Annamalai accused the police of "arresting" Soundararajan and vowed that the party would "not back down."

The PIL submitted to the Supreme Court calls for the enforcement of NEP in Tamil Nadu, Kerala and West Bengal, arguing that the state governments are constitutionally obligated to implement central education policies. The petition states, “The state government is under a constitutional or legal obligation to implement the National Educational Policy 2020 of the central government and to enter into an MoU for its implementation.”

Advocate GS Mani emphasised that while all other states in India have adopted the three-language policy, these three states continue to oppose it. The petition claims that NEP is designed to improve school education quality and ensure all Indian languages are taught to students, particularly those from underprivileged backgrounds, at no cost.

The plea also contends that the opposition to NEP is politically motivated. “The state governments of Tamil Nadu, Kerala and West Bengal are refusing to accept the three-language formula for political reasons, citing the false pretext of Hindi imposition,” it states. It further argues that rejecting the policy deprives children of their constitutional right to free education and calls on the Supreme Court to issue an order for immediate implementation.

Despite resistance from the Tamil Nadu government, BJP’s online campaign advocating for the three-language policy has reportedly received overwhelming support. Annamalai claimed that over one lakh people across Tamil Nadu have backed the campaign so far.

During the campaign, Soundararajan questioned the rationale behind the DMK’s opposition, arguing that students should have the opportunity to learn additional languages to enhance their career prospects. She emphasised that the three-language formula aims to create more job opportunities for students, not impose Hindi.

The Tamil Nadu government has fiercely opposed NEP, accusing the central government of attempting to introduce Hindi through the back door. Officials argue that the policy places undue pressure on non-Hindi-speaking states. The ruling DMK has long resisted any move that could be perceived as Hindi imposition and Chief Minister MK Stalin has repeatedly voiced his disapproval.

The government maintains that Tamil Nadu’s existing two-language policy—where students learn Tamil and English—has been successful and should not be altered. DMK leaders have dismissed BJP’s campaign as an attempt to disrupt the state’s education system and impose a central directive against the wishes of the people.

BJP’s Tamil Nadu unit has remained vocal in its criticism of the state government’s stance. In a post on X, Annamalai accused CM Stalin of misleading the public. “Having realised that the opposition to the three-language policy hasn’t yielded support from the common people, Thiru MK Stalin has now jumped to the imaginary Hindi imposition,” he wrote. He further alleged that Tamil was not being taught compulsorily in matriculation schools in the state.

The dispute over the three-language formula continues to deepen, with legal and political battles intensifying. While the Centre defends the policy as a means to promote multilingualism, Tamil Nadu and other opposing states argue that it threatens their linguistic identity. As the Supreme Court hears the PIL, the debate is expected to take a new turn, potentially setting a precedent for education policy implementation across India. The coming weeks will determine whether NEP becomes mandatory for all states or if Tamil Nadu and its allies succeed in maintaining their resistance.