Are prayers recited in Sanskrit not secular?, asks BJD MP
New Delhi, Feb 5: BJD leader B Mahtab Tuesday wondered whether reciting prayers in Sanskrit is not secular as he sought to raise in the Lok Sabha the issue of a petition in the Supreme Court against Kendriya Vidyalaya students being asked to recite prayers in Sanskrit.
He also asked the government to put forth its view on the matter in the House as well as in the Supreme Court.
A petition has been moved in the apex court against the revised education code for Kendriya Vidyalayas wherein recitation of common prayers in Sanskrit has been made compulsory for students.
Raising the issue during the Zero Hour, Mahtab said that common prayers are from the Upanishads.
Is something recited in Sanskrit not secular and why should someone go to the Supreme Court, he wondered.
BJP member Nishikant Dubey alleged that the West Bengal government was protecting corrupt people and illegal immigrants from Bangladesh for vote bank politics.
Dharmendra Yadav (SP) raised the issue of change in roster system for recruitment of teachers in colleges and universities.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Allahabad HC dismisses plea seeking FIR against Rahul Gandhi for 'fighting Indian State' remark
Prayagraj (PTI): Allahabad High Court on Friday dismissed a petition seeking registration of an FIR against Congress leader Rahul Gandhi for an alleged controversial remark in 2025.
Justice Vikram D Chauhan passed the order after hearing a petition filed by Simran Gupta of the right-wing organisation Hindu Shakti Dal.
Gupta challenged a Sambhal court's rejection of her plea seeking directions to lodge an FIR against Gandhi, the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha.
The petitioner had alleged that Gandhi, during the inauguration of the All India Congress Committee office in 2025, stated that "we are now fighting the BJP, the RSS, and the Indian State itself."
The petitioner said the remark hurt public sentiments and amounted to a seditious and anti-national statement allegedly intended to destabilise the country.
Justice Chauhan had, on April 8, reserved the order after hearing the counsels of the petitioner and the state government at length.
