Elections often turn religious issues into flashpoints. The Tiruparankundram Deepam controversy in Tamil Nadu is a recent example, with political parties across the spectrum accused of using it to stir emotions and gain votes. Even tragic incidents are now being linked to whether lamps were lit or not.
When the Advocate General has stated that there is no clear proof about the origin or religious nature of the structure called the “Deepathoon,” why is the issue still being aggressively pushed? If the courts are already hearing the matter, is it right for political leaders to make public statements and mobilise people on the streets?
What does the law say on such religious disputes, and what is the proper way to resolve them so that peace is maintained and faith is not politicised?
— Ram Kelkar, Madhavaram, Chennai
Since the Madurai Bench of the High Court has heard the Tiruparankundram Deepam case and reserved its orders, it is inappropriate for anyone to comment further. The matter is sub judice and must be left to the court.
Under constitutional law, not every religious practice is protected. Only practices that are an essential and integral part of a religion qualify for legal protection, and this must be established through evidence — not belief or emotion.
Tamil Nadu law provides a clear route. Anyone claiming a religious right must approach the authorities under Section 63 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act. The Deputy Commissioner decides the issue, and appeals lie before civil courts.
Raising such sensitive matters through public campaigns and writ petitions only fuels tension. Respecting legal procedures and court decisions is the only way to preserve peace.
Federal tensions will persist unless states regain meaningful control over schools and curricula
The proposed Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan Bill has caused concern on two counts. First, its language is difficult to comprehend in a country with over 130 spoken languages. Second, there is apprehension that it seeks to further centralise schooling, even though the subject falls under the Concurrent List.
Schooling is closely tied to language, culture, and social identity, which vary widely across states. If the Centre continues to expand its control over curriculum, boards, and institutions, do states have the constitutional right to object?
What legal options are available to state governments if their powers are steadily eroded? In a federal and plural country like India, how can states safeguard their role in shaping schooling to local needs?
— P Arivazhagan, Mannurpet, Chennai
Schooling and the medium of instruction have long been contentious issues between the Centre and the states. The Kothari Commission in the 1960s clearly recommended that these matters should remain with the states, which best understand local language and cultural needs.
Despite this, the Centre expanded its role by establishing the CBSE, running Kendriya Vidyalayas and Navodaya schools, and affiliating thousands of private institutions. This was later justified by shifting the subject from the State List to the Concurrent List through the 42nd Constitutional Amendment.
Legally, states can respond by passing resolutions, challenging central laws in constitutional courts, and demanding restoration of powers. Unless states regain real authority, disputes over language, curriculum, and governance will continue to strain India’s federal balance.