Rti Mr. B. Chandra Mohan, IAS Secretary to the Government School Education Department Government of Tamil Nadu, Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009. 2. Mr.P.Kuppusamy The Director of Private Schools Government of Tamil Nadu DPI Campus College Road Chennai-600 006 -Respondents/Respondents AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT l, P.Kuppusamy son of P.K.Peramandai, aged 57 Years, Director of Private Schools, Government of Tamilnadu, DPI Campus, College Road,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
(Contempt Original Jurisdiction) Contempt Petition. No.2040 of 2025
In
W.P.No. 18427 OF 2025
V. Eswaran,
Son of Mr.Velusamy,
President Marumalarchi Makkal Iyakkam, Covai
40/3, Sengappa Konar Street
Kurichi, Sundarapuram
Coimbatore-641 024 – Petitioner/Petitioner
-Vs-
1. Mr. B. Chandra Mohan, IAS
Secretary to the Government School Education Department Government of Tamil Nadu, Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.
2. Mr.P.Kuppusamy
The Director of Private Schools
Government of Tamil Nadu DPI Campus College Road
Chennai-600 006 -Respondents/Respondents
AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT l, P.Kuppusamy son of P.K.Peramandai, aged 57 Years, Director of Private Schools, Government of Tamilnadu, DPI Campus, College Road,
Chennai 600006 do hereby solemnly affirm and sincerely state as follows-j pag-a
PO
Directorate of Private S ODIS
Petasitiyar Anbazhagan Kalvi Valagam
Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 006
I am the Director of Private Schools, 2 nd Respondent herein and I am well acquainted with the facts of the case from the records.
2. At the outset, I submit that I have the highest regard and respect for the orders of this Honourable High Court and I have never disobeyed the orders of this Honourable Court, and also I do not have the slightest intention to disobey the orders passed by this Honourable Court. I tender my unconditional apology before this Honourable Court.
3. I submit that, this Contempt is filed by the Petitioner in W.P.No. 18427 of 2025 alleging that these Respondents have committed willful disobedience of the order passed by this Honorable Court in W.P.No.
18427 of 2025.
4. I submit that, the relief prayed for in the Writ Petition is as follows: “To issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to initiate the admission process under Right to Education Act, 2009 for the academic year 2025-26 immediately by considering petitioner’s representations dated 22.04.2025, 30.04.2025 and 08.05.2025.”
5. i further submit that, the order passed in the Writ Petition by this Honourable court is as follows:
“17.Having issued the aforesaid directions to the State Government, we call upon the Central Government to discharge its obligations under the Act. It is true that implementation of the Samagra Shiksha Scheme is aligned to NEP 2020. But then, obligation under RTE Act is independent by itself. Section 7 of the Act states that the Central
Government and the State Governments have concurrent
chools
Kalvi Valagam
responsibility for providing funds for carrying out the provisions of the Act. Section 7(3) of the Act mandates that the Central Government shall provide to the State Government as grant in aid of revenues such percentage of expenditure referred in sub-section 2 as it may determine from time to time in consultation of the State Governments.
Therefore, funds payable to the State Government representing the Central Govemment’s share towards discharging the RTE obligations need not be linked to NEP 2020. Since the State Government had already filed a suit before the Hon’b/e Supreme Court, we are not in a position to issue any binding direction in this regard. The total sum for the financial year 2024-25 towards SSS is Rs.3585.99 crores. The share of the Central Government is said to be Rs.2151.59 crores. The RTE component must be less than Rs.200.00 crores. There cannot be any difficulty in releasing the Central Government’s share under this head. We, therefore, direct the Central Govemment to consider de-linking the RTE component of SSS and disburse the funds accordingly. ”
6. I submit that, the delay in complying with the order of this Honorable Court is neither willful nor due to any negligence.
7. I submit that, there is no willful disobedience as alleged by the Petitioner. The State is prepared and willing to contribute its 40% share. However, without the Union’s 60% contribution, the State is statutorily and practically incapable of implementing the Act in full. This is not a case of unwillingness, but of structural impossibility
arising from another competent authority’s inaction.
Noh
Nungambaiskamj Chennai-600 006
8. I submit that, in the present contempt proceedings, the Union’s considered reply setting out whether and when it will release its 60% share is an essential part of the record for determining the compliance. Without such disclosure, the responsibility for nonimplementation cannot be fairly attributed to the State alone.
9. I submit that, the order alleged to have been disobeyed must be read alongside the statutory scheme and this Court’s own observations. A direction to the State Government alone to ensure full implementation of the RTE Act—without securing the release of the Union’s share would contradict Section 7, which envisages joint performance.
1 0. I submit that, in a cooperative federalism when an act mandates that both the state and union governments jointly fund a scheme, it reflects the constitutional principle of shared responsibility, requiring both levels of government to collaborate effectively to implement the scheme for public welfare.
1 1 . It is respectfully submitted that, the Union and states must work in tandem, respecting the division of powers under the Constitution, while ensuring neither shirks their financial or administrative obligations. If disputes arise, the Court shall interpret the act’s intent to ensure both governments contribute proportionally as prescribed, fostering coordination rather than conflict. For instance, in schemes like the Samagra Shiksha or PM Awas Yojana, where funding is shared both parties must adhere to their commitments unless explicitly modified by law.
irec or
Directorate of Priva Schools
Perasiriyar Anbazhagan Kalvi Valagam
Nungambakkam, Chennai•600 006
12. It is further submitted that, neither the State or Centre can unilaterally withdraw or fail to meet their financial commitments, as it undermines the objectives and public interest. Both governments must work collaboratively within their respective domains to fulfill statutory obligations, including funding commitments in joint schemes. Schemes involving shared funding require strict adherence to the agreed terms by both the Union and states, as these reflect a mutual commitment under the law. The state is always willing and ready to contribute its share.
13. It is submitted that, the compliance with the order passed by this Honourable Court requires concurrent action by both the Union and the State and the Government of India has to forthwith take a reasoned decision, consistent with Section 7, on release of its share of funds enabling the State Government to implement the order of this Honourable Court.
14. It is therefore humbly prayed that this Honourable Court may be pleased to record my affidavit and pass such further or other order as this Honorable Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice.
Solemnly affirmed at Chennai on this the
Directorat c: Private Sc ools
day of August 2025 Perasiriyar Anbazhagan Kalvi Valagam Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 006
and signed his name in my presence. Before me
S. PO GODI,M A., B.L.,
ADVOCATE & NOTARY
No: 111/188. Dr. BESANT ROAD ROYAPET}BH, CHENNAI.600 ot4. ceti : 94444 09e82, 80562 38492
G.o. Ms. No : 211/22

IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF
JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
CoOe•ffOriginal Jurisdiction)
CONT.PETNo 2040 OF 2025
IN
W.P.NO 18427 OF 2025
AFFIDAVIT OF CONTEMPT PETTITION