Should central transfers under centrally sponsored schemes be tied to State adoption of national policy frameworks? Discuss in the context of PM SHRI.

Centrally Sponsored Schemes (CSS) let the Union pay for State functions on its own terms. PM SHRI was approved in September 2022 to upgrade 14,500+ schools as models of NEP 2020. To join, a State must sign an MoU agreeing to implement NEP "in entirety" [1]. Education is a Concurrent List subject [3]. Conditions are therefore fair within a scheme, but they become a problem when they are stretched beyond it.

Case for linking funds to national frameworks

• Accountability: CSS money comes from national revenues, so asking for results in return is a fair expectation.
• Common standards: NEP 2020 sets shared benchmarks for curriculum and assessment, which helps students who move between States. The Centre reports that NEP is being rolled out across school education [5].
• Voluntary opt-in: PM SHRI is a separate, optional scheme [1], and only a few States held out [4].

Case against

• Federal autonomy: Under the Concurrent List, States can also make laws on education [3]. Making funds depend on adopting a whole national policy turns a shared subject into a Union-led one in practice.
• Pressure across schemes: The Samagra Shiksha scheme carries a Central share of ₹1,85,398.32 crore for 2021–26 [2]. Its funds were withheld from Kerala, Tamil Nadu and West Bengal because they did not sign the PM SHRI MoU. The Parliamentary Standing Committee (363rd Report, 2025) called this "not justifiable" [4].
• Cost to children: Samagra Shiksha helps States meet Right to Education targets and existed before PM SHRI [4]. Holding it back hurts students, not governments.
• Polarisation: Opposition-ruled States now resist as a group, so bargaining over funds is becoming ideological conflict.

Way forward

• Keep conditions within each scheme: NEP conditions can stay inside PM SHRI, but core Samagra Shiksha funds should be protected, as the Committee advised [4].
• Tie funds to outcomes, not policy adoption: Set learning and enrolment targets and let States choose their own route to them.
• Use a forum before stopping funds: Settle conditions through a revived Central Advisory Board of Education (CABE) or an Inter-State Council mechanism before any money is held back.

In short, conditions on CSS funds are a sound tool for accountability, but they should not be used to force policy uniformity on a shared subject. Conditions based on outcomes, with optional schemes kept separate from core ones, would respect cooperative federalism and advance SDG-4's goal of quality education for every child.