New Delhi, May 22 -- Tamil Nadu has moved the Supreme Court against the Union government's withholding of Rs.2,151 crore under a centrally-sponsored education scheme, alleging it was done to "coerce" and "force" the state to implement the National Education Policy (NEP). In a suit filed on Tuesday, the state sought release of funds under the Samagra Shiksha Scheme (SSS) for 2024-25. It said the funds were withheld due to the state's refusal to adopt the NEP and opposition to the three-language policy, which includes Hindi. "The defendant by withholding the plaintiff's entitlement to receive funds under the SSS is an ignorance of the doctrine of co-operative federalism, usurpation of the Constitutional power of the plaintiff State to legislate under Entry 25, List III and seeks to coerce and force the plaintiff State to implement the NEP-2020 throughout the state in its entirety and to deviate from the education regime followed in the plaintiff state." Chief minister MK Stalin-led Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) government has maintained that the Union government has sought to link the release of funds to the acceptance of the NEP and another central scheme, PM SHRI Schools. On April 8, the Supreme Court struck down Tamil Nadu governor RN Ravi's move to reserve 10 re-enacted bills for presidential assent after withholding their approval. A presidential reference this month questioned the verdict that laid down a timeline for the president and governors to decide on state bills. The fresh suit said the memorandum of understanding of the PM SHRI Schools dictates NEP implementation in Tamil Nadu in its entirety. It added that this was not agreeable to the state due to the opposition to Clause 4.13 of the NEP, envisaging a three-language formula. "Such coercive tactics are neither legally permissible nor consistent with state legislation, particularly in light of the two-language formula adopted by the state," the suit said. The suit was filed under the Constitution's Article 131, dealing with the court's power to decide on Union government-state disputes. It said the withholding of its "obligatory share" under the SSS has crippled the implementation of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 and impacted over 4.39 million students, 221,000 teachers and 32,701 school staff. The suit said that for the financial year 2024-25, the Project Approval Board in February 2024, after being satisfied with the state's due compliance with all the components under the SSS, allocated a total of Rs 3585.99 crore as the total outlay for expenditure under the scheme. "As under the 60:40 sharing basis, the Central share amounted to Rs 2151,59,61,000 out of the total budget outlay that was due and payable to the state from April 1, 2024." The state said that the attempt to link the SSS with the PM SHRI Schools Scheme is unjustified, as the two centrally sponsored schemes have no interconnection, interrelationship, or convergence and operate in entirely different domains. It added that the attempt to link these schemes under the pretext of implementing the NEP is legally questionable, fundamentally unacceptable, and violative of the state's autonomy, the federal structure of the Constitution, and the state's statutes. The state said it has consistently opposed the implementation of the three-language formula under the NEP since its inception. It said the Union Government, over the years, recognised the state's stand and refrained from insisting on the three-language formula. The Tamil Nadu assembly passed a resolution in January 1968, rejecting the Official Languages (Amendment) Act, 1967, and the corresponding Parliament resolution. "This State Resolution called for the scrapping of the three-language formula and mandated that only Tamil and English be taught in schools across Tamil Nadu, with Hindi being excluded from the curriculum," the state said. It added that the state has been exempted from implementing the Official Languages Act, 1963, as provided under the Official Languages Rules, 1976. The suit said the Union government cannot compel the state to implement its policy under the guise of financial support....