The resistance of certain States to implement the PM SHRI scheme reflects deeper structural tensions in Centre–State relations in education. Critically examine.

Education sits in Entry 25 of the Concurrent List, making every school reform a negotiated act. PM SHRI — a ₹27,360 crore Centrally Sponsored Scheme to upgrade 14,500+ existing schools [1] — is operationalised only through a Centre–State MoU [4], and the holdout by West Bengal, Kerala and Tamil Nadu exposes fault lines wider than one scheme.

Structural tensions the resistance does reveal

• Consent-based implementation: despite concurrency, the Centre has no legal instrument to compel a State into a CSS; the MoU makes State assent a veto point [4].
• Fiscal asymmetry: States must co-fund (60:40, 90:10 for special-category States) a centrally designed template, paying for priorities they did not set.
• Policy-ownership conflict: PM SHRI is explicitly the delivery vehicle for NEP 2020 [2], so signing is read as endorsing a policy some States contest.
• Uniformity versus diversity: a single exemplar-school model sits awkwardly with States running mature, distinct school systems.

Why the tension is not purely structural

• 34 of 36 States/UTs, across party lines, have signed and progressed [5] — resistance is confined, not systemic.
• The stance is avoidance rather than articulated constitutional objection: Kerala kept the MoU "in abeyance", while West Bengal left 11 Union letters unanswered over three years [5].
• Deliberative forums such as CABE and MoU renegotiation remain available but under-used by both sides.

Costs of the standoff

• Phase 1 already covers 6,207 schools and 35+ lakh students [3]; excluded children forgo upgraded foundational-literacy, digital and vocational facilities.
• Government schools mainly serve SC/ST and EWS children, making exclusion socially regressive and thinning the substance of Article 21A.
• With the scheme window closing in 2026-27, Central funds risk lapsing [5].

The episode reflects the strain of consent-based scheme design rather than a breakdown of federalism itself. A flexible MoU permitting State-specific customisation and branding, settled through CABE, would let both governments protect autonomy while honouring the shared constitutional promise of quality schooling for every child.