A conflict has emerged over implementation of the PM SHRI Scheme, raising questions about cooperative federalism and state autonomy.

About PM SHRI Scheme

• Objective: Convert 14,500 schools into model schools aligned with the National Education Policy (NEP).
• Type of Scheme: It is a Centrally Sponsored Scheme requiring state participation through Memorandums of Understanding (MoUs).
  • Centrally Sponsored Schemes (CSS) are programmes shared between the Centre and the States, where the funding pattern varies (commonly 60:40, 90:10 for special category states).
  • They aim to implement national priorities through state-level execution, covering key sectors like health, education, agriculture, and rural development.
• Implementation Mechanism: Operates through the Samagra Shiksha Scheme funding framework.

Reasons For States Opposing the PM SHRI Scheme

• Ideological Concerns: Opposition-ruled states allege NEP carries communal and anti-scientific bias.
• Federalism Argument: States argue that education is a Concurrent List subject, and the Centre is imposing unilateral policies.

Tamil Nadu’s Stand on Implementation of PM SHRI Scheme

• Refusal to Implement: Tamil Nadu outright rejected the PM SHRI Scheme and the NEP, stating that the Centre cannot dictate state education policies.
• Financial Blackmail Allegation: Following this refusal, the Centre withheld funds under the Samagra Shiksha Scheme, indicating that without signing PM SHRI, states may not receive existing education grants.
• Legal Response: Tamil Nadu approached the Supreme Court, claiming that linking existing education funds to the acceptance of a new scheme amounts to financial coercion and violates the principle of cooperative federalism.

Kerala’s Approach On PM SHRI Scheme

• Initial Opposition: Kerala, like Tamil Nadu, initially opposed both the PM SHRI Scheme and the National Education Policy (NEP) on ideological and federalism grounds.
• Forced Compromise: Despite this, the state eventually signed the MoU with the Centre, not out of policy agreement but out of concern over losing central funds.
• Missed Legal Recourse: Critics argue that Kerala could have legally challenged the Centre’s move, as Tamil Nadu did, instead of yielding under financial pressure.
• Limited Added Value: Given Kerala’s already high enrolment rates, strong learning outcomes, and modern school infrastructure, the PM SHRI scheme offers little additional benefit to the state.

Concerns Regarding Implementation of PM SHRI

• Use of Financial Leverage: The Centre is accused of linking the release of Samagra Shiksha funds to the acceptance of PM SHRI, using funding as a tool to enforce compliance with central schemes.
• Undermining Federalism: Such coercion weakens decentralisation. Despite education being in the Concurrent List, unilateral imposition of the scheme violates the federal balance.

Check Out UPSC CSE Books

Visit PW Store

Conclusion

The PM SHRI dispute underscores a clash between national control and state autonomy. Cooperative federalism must rest on consent, not coercion, allowing states the freedom to adapt national goals to local needs.

DOWNLOAD PDF