No uniformity in education as each state has own culture: Kapil Sibal

There can’t be uniformity in education since each State has its own cultural ethos, and unique characteristics, he added. 

Published: 09th November 2022 03:10 AM  |   Last Updated: 09th November 2022 03:10 AM   |  A+A-

Senior Congress leader Kapil Sibal addresses a press conference at party headquarters in New Delhi.

Former Congress leader Kapil Sibal (Photo | PTI)

Express News Service

CHENNAI:  Senior counsel and Rajya Sabha member Kapil Sibal representing the State government told the Madras High Court on Tuesday that a situation may arise when TN children may have to study medicine in Hindi if education continues to be on the Concurrent list. There can’t be uniformity in education since each State has its own cultural ethos, and unique characteristics, he added. 

“The State should have the freedom to decide what is required for its children. Local ethos, culture, and arts should be taken into consideration while framing the curriculum. This is not to be decided by (the Centre) sitting in Delhi,” he said, making arguments on the case challenging Section 57 of the Constitution, 42nd (Amendment) Act, 1976, which paved the way for removing education from the State list.

He further assailed the concept of uniformity in education saying that it is against the standards. “Uniformity is an anti-thesis.” Sibal made the arguments before a full bench of Justices R Mahadevan, M Sundar, and Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy. 

Questioning the powers and rationale of the Parliament in debating the facets of education of a State, he asked what if the Parliament says children will be taught only in Hindi? ‘This will invade the fundamental rights and the basic structure of the Constitution and federalism.” He said that he heard from someone in the ‘North Block’ that medical education will soon be imparted in Hindi across India. 

Answering a question of the bench about the delay of four-and-a-half decades in challenging the 42nd Amendment, he said there is no question of lag or delay for challenging the amendment when it is against the very basic structure of the Constitution. Senior counsel NR Elango, representing the petitioner, Dr Ezhilan Naganathan, DMK MLA, and a trustee of Aram Seyya Virumbu, wound up his arguments.

The matter was posted to December 9 for hearing.


Disclaimer : We respect your thoughts and views! But we need to be judicious while moderating your comments. All the comments will be moderated by the editorial. Abstain from posting comments that are obscene, defamatory or inflammatory, and do not indulge in personal attacks. Try to avoid outside hyperlinks inside the comment. Help us delete comments that do not follow these guidelines.

The views expressed in comments published on are those of the comment writers alone. They do not represent the views or opinions of or its staff, nor do they represent the views or opinions of The New Indian Express Group, or any entity of, or affiliated with, The New Indian Express Group. reserves the right to take any or all comments down at any time.

flipboard facebook twitter whatsapp