T.N. Law Minister declines request for legislation to abolish superstitions
Tamil Nadu's Minister for Law S. Regupathy on Monday (April 21, 2025) declined a request by a DMK MLA, who sought a special legislation to abolish superstitions in the State. Speaking in the Assembly, the Minister contended that such a law would not 'stop one belief or protect another.'
'People would have their own beliefs. One's belief may be superstition; someone's else may be a religious belief. As per the Constitution, they could only protect their own rights. It [a law] would not be possible, and we cannot bring about a legislation either to stop one belief or protect another,' Mr. Regupathy said.
While responding to a demand by DMK legislator N. Ezhilan, Mr. Regupathy said: 'There is nothing wrong with following our own principles. We have to see if it would be acceptable to attempt to force [them] others.'
Earlier, Mr. Ezhilan referred to Article 51 A(h) of the Constitution to say that it was the duty of every citizen to develop the scientific temper, humanism, and the spirit of inquiry and reform. He sought to know if the State government would enact a special legislation to abolish superstitions and help people in fulfilling their duties.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
25 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Census, followed by delimitation or freeze? The road ahead, likely legal challenges
The current freeze on delimitation — which for the past 50 years has based the allocation of seats to states in the Lok Sabha on the census figures of 1971 — will expire in 2026, unless Parliament passes another Constitutional Amendment Bill by then to extend it. The reason: the Constitution under Article 82 mandates delimitation after each census to readjust the seats as per changes in population. It says, 'Upon the completion of each census, the allocation of seats in the House of the People to the States and the division of each State into territorial constituencies shall be readjusted by such authority and in such manner as Parliament may by law determine.' Article 81 of the Constitution provides for the 'one person, one vote, one value' principle. Article 81 (2) (a) says, 'There shall be allotted to each State a number of seats in the House of the People in such manner that the ratio between that number and the population of the state is, so far as practicable, the same for all States.' Article 81 (2) (b) says, 'Each State shall be divided into territorial constituencies in such manner that the ratio between the population of each constituency and number of seats allotted to it is, so far as practicable, the same throughout the State.' With the collection of data for the next census ending by March 1, 2027, the release of census data could coincide with the expiry of the freeze on delimitation. This freeze was put in place first for 25 years through a constitutional amendment in 1976, and again by 25 years through a constitutional amendment in 2002. The reason for the freeze was the concern of the southern states that because their population had stabilised by then, and the population of some northern states had begun to grow at a brisk pace, their representation in the Lok Sabha would go down. To freeze or not to freeze With the Constitution ensuring equality of representation to citizens and not states of the Union, and mandating delimitation every 10 years to adjust the allocation of the seats to population, the only way in which the southern states will not lose representation would have to be another Constitutional amendment. However, with government sources saying that the idea is to have delimitation and then women's reservation in the Lok Sabha elections of 2029, the census is likely to be followed by delimitation. The website of the Election Commission of India says, 'Under Article 82 of the Constitution, the Parliament by law enacts a Delimitation Act after every census. After the commencement of the Act, the Central Government constitutes a Delimitation Commission. This Delimitation Commission demarcates the boundaries of the Parliamentary Constituencies as per provisions of the Delimitation Act. The present delimitation of constituencies has been done on the basis of 2001 census figures under the provisions of Delimitation Act, 2002. Notwithstanding the above, the Constitution of India was specifically amended in 2002 not to have delimitation of constituencies till the first census after 2026. Thus, the present Constituencies carved out on the basis of the 2001 census shall continue to be in operation till the first census after 2026.' In other words, the release of census data will be followed by the passage of the Delimitation Bill in Parliament, unless Parliament suspends the constitutionally mandated process by amending the Constitution to freeze delimitation by, say, another 25 years. Potential legal issues Once the Delimitation Commission is constituted by the Centre, it will use the latest census data to redraw Lok Sabha constituencies. However, it will be bound by Article 81 of the Constitution to redraw these on the basis of the latest population data, unless Article 81 is itself amended. Article 81 may anyway require amendments. For instance, since it limits the strength of the Lok Sabha to 550 under clauses (a) and (b), the strength will have to revised through a constitutional amendment so as to ensure that one MP does not represent too large a population, and to pave way for the reservation of women without cutting down the seats available to men. Article 81 as of now makes one exception to the 'one person, one vote, one value' principle, by giving small states and Union Territories at least one seat even if their population is very low. Since the Constitution is clear about the centrality of this principle in all other cases, the only way the south does not lose relative strength in the Lok Sabha will be by amending Article 81 (2) (a). However, any move to amend Article 81 (2) (a) would be liable to challenge in the Supreme Court as violative of the right to equality enshrined in Articles 14 and 15. The fear in south India is that if delimitation is based purely on population, northern states will get much more seats and thus a very large voice in Parliament. But if the law is amended and they get more seats than they would through the population criterion, then voters in the north and the south are not being treated equally. Even if the principle of reasonable classification — likes be treated alike — is evoked, it will be based on the argument that better social and economic indicators require special protection for southern states. This logic is exactly opposite to the one that permits reservation on the grounds that the state can make special provisions for the backward classes. The delimitation question, thus, has no easy answers, and is likely to lead to much litigation. Vikas Pathak is deputy associate editor with The Indian Express and writes on national politics. He has over 17 years of experience, and has worked earlier with The Hindustan Times and The Hindu, among other publications. He has covered the national BJP, some key central ministries and Parliament for years, and has covered the 2009 and 2019 Lok Sabha polls and many state assembly polls. He has interviewed many Union ministers and Chief Ministers. Vikas has taught as a full-time faculty member at Asian College of Journalism, Chennai; Symbiosis International University, Pune; Jio Institute, Navi Mumbai; and as a guest professor at Indian Institute of Mass Communication, New Delhi. Vikas has authored a book, Contesting Nationalisms: Hinduism, Secularism and Untouchability in Colonial Punjab (Primus, 2018), which has been widely reviewed by top academic journals and leading newspapers. He did his PhD, M Phil and MA from JNU, New Delhi, was Student of the Year (2005-06) at ACJ and gold medalist from University Rajasthan College in Jaipur in graduation. He has been invited to top academic institutions like JNU, St Stephen's College, Delhi, and IIT Delhi as a guest speaker/panellist. ... Read More
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Bombay HC stays govt mandate for quota in minority institutions for Class 11 admissions
The Bombay High Court has temporarily suspended the Maharashtra government's order mandating minority educational institutions to reserve seats for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and Other Backward Classes for junior college admissions. Justices Karnik and Borkar issued the stay following petitions challenging the May 6 resolution. Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads The Bombay High Court on Thursday granted an interim stay on the Maharashtra government 's mandate to minority educational institutes to reserve seats for Schedule Castes/Schedule Tribes and Other Backward Classes for first-year junior college admissions.A bench of Justices M S Karnik and N R Borkar passed the order on a bunch of petitions filed by some minority institutions , challenging the May 6 resolution issued by the government's school education and sports department applying the constitutional/social reservations in minority education high court said it found substance in the petitioners' arguments and hence the mandate of social reservation will not be applicable for Class 11 admissions in minority educational HC bench said it was granting a stay on the clause of the resolution that included minority educational institutes for the directed the government to file its affidavit in reply to the petitions and posted the matter for further hearing on August high court on Wednesday questioned the government's rationale behind the resolution and asked if it was willing to withdraw the same or issue a corrigendum clarifying that minority institutes would not be included in the Thursday, government pleader Neha Bhide told the court that she has no instructions from the government to withdraw the resolution or issue a per the pleas, Article 15(5) of the Constitution excludes minority educational institutes, aided or unaided, from applicability of reservations for socially and educationally backward petitions claimed that under Article 30(1) (right of minorities to establish and administer educational institutions), the right of admission is exclusively with the management of the institution.A similar GR (government resolution) was issued in 2019 but it was withdrawn after petitions were filed then, they said.
Indian Express
an hour ago
- Indian Express
FYJC admissions: HC halts effect of Maharashtra decision to apply SC/ST/OBC reservation to minority institutions
After the Maharashtra government refused to withdraw its decision to apply SC/ST/OBC reservation to minority trust-run junior colleges for the First Year Junior College (FYJC) admissions, the Bombay High Court on Thursday stayed the effect of the decision, dealing the government a setback. The court granted the interim relief to colleges run by minority trusts and their association after finding substance in their submissions. 'Accordingly, as far as admission to Class 11 is concerned, the mandate of social reservation shall not be made applicable to any minority educational institutions,' the court held and directed the state government to take steps in that regard. The state will have to update the online admission portal in accordance with court order. This came after the government lawyer informed the court that she had no instructions from the officials to withdraw the relevant clause in the government resolution issued by the school education department. On Wednesday, the court asked the government to consider withdrawing the relevant portion of the government resolution. The court also reminded the government that it had withdrawn a similar government resolution in 2019. A bench of Justices Makarand S Karnik and Nitin R Borkar passed an interim order on a batch of petitions by the Maharashtra Association of Minority Educational Institutions, two minority colleges in Solapur and those from South Mumbai, including Jai Hind, KC, HR and St Xavier's colleges, challenging the government resolution. Senior advocate Milind Sathe and advocate S C Naidu, appearing for petitioners, argued that the decision was 'arbitrary' and 'imposed without any authority of law' and without hearing or consulting them. They claimed that minority institutions were excluded from applying social reservations under Article 15(5) of the Constitution and that they can establish and administer educational institutions, as per Article 30 (1). Government Pleader Neha Bhide, however, defended the decision stating that minority educational institutions' rights were not fettered by the government resolution, as per which she said social reservation was applicable only to the surrendered seats from the minority quota and would not therefore affect such institutions. As per the established practice followed until the previous academic year, 45 per cent of the total intake in minority institutions was kept open to all students, regardless of category, after allocating 50 per cent for the respective minority community and 5 per cent for the management quota. However, this year, after the impugned government resolution, the FYJC admission portal showed that SC/ST/OBC reservation is being applied to those 45 per cent seats, which led to confusion and controversy in FYJC admissions for 2025-26. Clause 11 in the May 6 government resolution stated, 'If admissions are lower than the intake capacity in minority quota, admissions can be given as per interchanging between linguistic and religious minority groups. Even after that, if seats remain vacant, those surrendered vacant seats will be filled based on the centralised admission process where all social and parallel reservations are applicable.' While colleges claimed that the government resolution pertained to leftover seats in the minority quota, government officials had said it implied that social reservation would be applicable to all open (non-minority) seats in minority-trust-run colleges. Thereafter, the state government issued a corrective resolution on June 2, which implied social reservation to all open seats in minority colleges. The Association, through its writ plea for setting aside the relevant portion of the government resolution, also sought the court's directive to authorities to take immediate steps to correct/update the online admission portal for Class 11 admissions for the member institutions. On June 10, the government issued a new corrective government resolution, which brought back the same sentence along with additional inputs from the May 6 government resolution. The court has asked the state government to file its reply to the pleas within four weeks and posted further hearing to August 6.
