English हिन्दी
Connect with us

India News

SC Constitution Bench to hear plea against compulsory Sanskrit and Hindi prayers in KVs

Published

8 years ago

on

Kendriya Vidyalaya assembly prayer

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]The Supreme Court today (Monday, Jan 28) said Constitution Bench should decide a petition challenging the compulsory recital of Hindi and Sanskrit prayers by Kendriya Vidyalaya students in the morning assembly.

The apex court directed that the plea be placed before Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi for referring it to an appropriate bench, said media reports.

The petition, filed by Madhya Pradesh-based lawyer Veenayak Shah, has challenged the Article 92 of the “Revised Education Code of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan” terming it as “unconstitutional” on the grounds that it contravenes Articles 28(1), 19(1)(a) and 25(1) of the Indian Constitution.

In his petition, Shah said the practise of prayer created obstacles in developing scientific temperament among students as the whole idea of God and religious faith is given immense priority and instilled as a thought-process among the students.

“Students as a result learn to develop an inclination towards seeking refuge from the almighty instead of developing a practical outcome towards the obstacles and hurdles faced in everyday life, and the spirit of enquiry and reform seems to be lost somewhere,” the plea said.

Shah said the prayers are “based on Hindu religion” and was being “imposed” on students irrespective of their faith and belief.

According to the Revised Education Code for Kendriya Vidyalayas implemented in 2013, “compulsory attendance” of students in the morning assembly is required where they have to recite the prayers.

“The common prayer is in Sanskrit and Hindi, and all the students irrespective of their faith and belief have to perform the prayer in a respectful manner by closing their eyes and folding their hands. All the teachers share the collective responsibility of supervising the assembly and making sure that every student folds his/her hands, closes his/her eyes and recites the prayers without fail,” the petitioner contended and alleged that “any student failing to do so is punished and humiliated in front of the entire school”.

Shah quoted the prayers in the petition and said it “is being enforced throughout the country in all Kendra Vidyalayas. As a result, parents and children of the minority communities as well as atheists and others who do not agree with this system of prayer, such as agnostics… rationalists and others would find the imposition of this prayer constitutionally impermissible.”

The petition claimed that “a perusal of the prayer shows that it is based on Hindu religion and it is very different, both in substance and form from the prayers of the other religious/ non-religious orientations mentioned above”.

He added that this raised the question of whether the “state” could “impose” a “common prayer” on students and teachers throughout India.

Shah also submitted before the court that the common prayer is a “religious instruction” within the meaning of Article 28 of the Constitution and should therefore be prohibited. Article 28(1) says that no religious instruction shall be provided in any educational institution wholly maintained out of state funds.

The plea was being heard by a two-judge bench of Justice Rohinton F Nariman and Navin Sinha.

“We think this is an issue of seminal importance… a Constitution Bench should examine it,” Justice Nariman told solicitor general (SG) Tushar Mehta, who appeared on behalf of the Union government.

“We think this is an issue of seminal importance… a Constitution Bench should examine it,” Justice Nariman told solicitor general (SG) Tushar Mehta, who appeared on behalf of the Union government.

Mehta contended that singing of Sanskrit hymn ‘Asato Ma Sadgamaya’ at the school assembly every morning does not amount to imparting religious instructions. “It is a universal truth, recognised by all texts, all paths of religion. It cannot become religious only because it is in Sanskrit. You have Christian schools saying ‘Honesty is the best policy’. Will that make the statement religious? I don’t think so,” Mehta said.

Justice Nariman said, “But this hymn ‘Asato Ma Sadgamaya’ is directly from the Upanishad.”

The SG replied that the official logo of the Supreme Court also carries a hymn from Bhagvad Gita. “The logo, which is there behind every judge of this Court says ‘Yato Dharmas Tato Jaya’, meaning where there is Dharma, there is victory. There is nothing religious or communal about it,” Mehta said.

However, Justice Nariman was convinced that this matter should go to a larger bench. He ordered that the petition will be placed before the Chief Justice of India for setting up an appropriate bench.

In the previous hearings, the court had issued notice to the Centre asking for its response on the move.

The bench comprising Justices R F Nariman and Navin Sinha had described it a “serious constitutional issue” which needs to be examined.

 

Tags: Supreme Court, Constitution Bench, Kendriya Vidyalaya, Hindi and Sanskrit prayers, religious instruction[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]

Related Topics:
Continue Reading

India News

Gandhi Parivar vs Sangh Parivar, Revanth Reddy’s remark sparks BJP attack

Telangana Chief Minister Revanth Reddy’s remarks contrasting the Gandhi Parivar with the Sangh Parivar triggered a BJP response accusing Congress of prioritising the Gandhi family.

Published

4 hours ago

on

September 26, 2026

By

Telangana Chief Minister Revanth Reddy’s remarks comparing the Gandhi Parivar and Sangh Parivar have triggered a political exchange, with the BJP hitting back at the Congress leader.

Speaking in Kerala on Friday, Mr Reddy described the contest over India’s future as a fight between the two “parivars”. He said the Gandhi family had made sacrifices for the country while accusing the Sangh Parivar of attempting to divide India on the basis of religion, caste, region and language.

What Revanth Reddy said

Mr Reddy cited Mahatma Gandhi, Indira Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi while speaking about what he described as sacrifices made by the Gandhi family.

He also referred to Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi and Priyanka Gandhi, saying they had given up positions, power and high office.

The Telangana Chief Minister said he had no remaining personal political ambitions and described his objective as working towards a Congress-led government at the Centre with Rahul Gandhi as Prime Minister.

Mr Reddy also appealed to people to stand with the Gandhi Parivar and oppose the Sangh Parivar. He described the latter as a threat to India’s democracy.

BJP hits back

The BJP responded to Mr Reddy’s remarks on Saturday.

BJP spokesperson Pradeep Bhandari said the Telangana Chief Minister’s comments amounted to an admission that Congress’s objective was to bring the Gandhi family back to power.

He also linked Mr Reddy’s remarks to the ongoing political debate around “vote chori”, the Election Commission, the Constitution and democracy, arguing that the Congress’s focus was instead on the Gandhi family.

The exchange adds to the political confrontation between the BJP and Congress, with Mr Reddy presenting the Gandhi Parivar and Sangh Parivar as opposing forces in India’s political future, while the BJP has interpreted his remarks as evidence of Congress’s focus on the Gandhi family.

Continue Reading

India News

India hits back at Shehbaz Sharif at UN, says terror will have consequences

India hit back at Pakistan Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif’s UN speech, with New Delhi warning that terrorism will have consequences.

Published

10 hours ago

on

September 26, 2026

By

India has responded to Pakistan Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif’s remarks at the United Nations, delivering a strong message on terrorism and warning that such actions will have consequences.

The response came after Mr Sharif addressed the UN and raised issues concerning India and Pakistan. New Delhi rejected the narrative presented by the Pakistani prime minister and highlighted the issue of terrorism.

India’s message was delivered by Petal Gehlot, who represented New Delhi in the response to Pakistan.

India warns Pakistan over terrorism

India’s response focused on Pakistan’s record and its approach towards terrorism. New Delhi made clear that terrorism cannot be separated from its consequences and that those responsible cannot expect such actions to go unanswered.

The Indian side also pushed back against the claims and allegations made by Mr Sharif during his UN speech.

The exchange comes amid continuing tensions between India and Pakistan, with terrorism remaining a major point of disagreement between the two countries.

Shehbaz Sharif’s UN remarks

In his address, Pakistan Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif spoke about India-Pakistan relations and raised several issues concerning New Delhi.

India subsequently exercised its right of reply to respond to Pakistan’s statements at the United Nations.

New Delhi’s response underlined its position that terrorism remains a serious issue in the relationship and that there would be consequences for terrorist actions.

The latest exchange at the UN adds to the continuing diplomatic confrontation between the two neighbouring countries.

Continue Reading

India News

Veeramani POCSO case: Vijay questions Stalin over earlier probe

Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Vijay has questioned MK Stalin over the handling of the Veeramani POCSO case, while Stalin has rejected allegations that the previous DMK government protected anyone.

Published

24 hours ago

on

September 25, 2026

By

Actor Vijay

Tamil Nadu Chief Minister and Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) president C Joseph Vijay has questioned DMK president MK Stalin over the handling of the POCSO case involving Gem Granites founder R Veeramani. The political exchange follows renewed investigation into allegations involving minor girls.

Vijay’s remarks came as the ruling TVK stepped up its questions about how the case was handled during the previous DMK government. The party’s IT wing has alleged that the earlier investigation was weakened and questioned why a final report was filed.

The allegations have been rejected by the DMK. Stalin has said that no order was issued by the DMK government to protect anyone in the case and has called the allegations false and defamatory.

What did Vijay say about the Veeramani case?

Vijay questioned Stalin over the handling of the case and demanded an explanation from the former chief minister.

The TVK has specifically questioned why action was not taken against Veeramani during the previous administration and why the earlier investigation resulted in a closure report.

The party has also raised questions about the role of officials involved in the earlier investigation. These are political allegations made by the TVK and have not been established as facts.

What is the Veeramani POCSO case?

The case concerns allegations of sexual abuse of minors involving R Veeramani, the founder of Gem Granites.

The case came under renewed scrutiny after a special POCSO court rejected an earlier closure report and ordered further investigation. The expanded probe has subsequently identified additional alleged survivors who were minors at the time of the alleged offences, according to current reporting.

The investigation is also examining the circumstances surrounding the earlier probe and whether there were any lapses in how the case was handled.

What has MK Stalin said?

Stalin has rejected allegations that the previous DMK government protected Veeramani.

He has said that no order was issued by the DMK government to shield anyone in the case. Stalin has also said that everyone responsible for the alleged offences, including anyone who aided or attempted to protect the accused, should face the law.

The DMK president has further said that the focus should remain on securing justice for the affected girls rather than making political allegations.

Why has the case become a political issue?

The Veeramani case has become the subject of a political dispute between the ruling TVK and the DMK over the handling of the earlier investigation.

The TVK is questioning the previous government’s handling of the case, while the DMK has denied that it intervened to protect the accused.

At this stage, claims about political interference or deliberate weakening of the earlier investigation should be treated as allegations unless established by the ongoing investigation or judicial proceedings.

Continue Reading

Trending

© Copyright 2022 APNLIVE.com