The Tamil Nadu (TN) government Tuesday told the Madras High Court that by keeping the subject of education in the concurrent list of the Constitution, the parliament was exercising expansive powers on matters that are local and the same amounts to violation of federalism [Aram Seyya Virumbu Trust v Union of India]. .Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, who appeared for the TN government, said that there could not be any uniformity in education and that it must vary per one's capabilities, local culture, and one's mother tongue."What if the parliament tomorrow said that all children will only be taught in Hindi?" Sibal asked. "That according to me is an invasion of fundamental rights and the basic structure of the Constitution. The importance of mother tongue is universally accepted," he added. Sibal was arguing before a full bench of Justices R Mahadevan, M Sundar, and SenthilKumar Ramamoorthy. The bench was hearing a petition filed by a non-profit Trust that is represented by DMK MLA Ezhilan Naganathan, seeking that the subject of education that was deleted from the State List and moved to the Concurrent List through the 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act passed during the Emergency years, be restored to the State List. The bench asked why the petitioner and the State government were seeking such relief four and a half decades after the 42nd Amendment? Sibal, however, said that deleting education from the State list was in breach of the basic structure of the Constitution and the principle of federalism. Besides, when it came to restoring the basic structure of the Constitution, there is no bar on the ground of delay, Sibal said. He said that the parliament must not have the power to invade a State's autonomy. ."The question is not what the Union government has done so far. It is what can they do?" Sibal said..He went on to argue that the bifurcation of jurisdiction between the states and the Union was based on the thematic principle of territorial boundaries. He said that the parliament exercised its jurisdiction on subjects pertaining to cross-border issues, territorial boundaries, and national security. On matters such as education, the parliament's powers must be limited to setting up standards and maintaining those standards so that students coming out of schools from any part of India stand at equal footing to secure admissions in Universities across the country. "What curriculum should be used or what language should be the medium of teaching in Tamil Nadu, or Kerala, or Karnataka, is not for the parliament to decide," Sibal said. "This is giving expansive power to the parliament when it comes to primary and secondary education. They can do anything they want in my territory," he said. Sibal also said that he heard someone in the North Block say that soon all medical education across India will be imparted in Hindi. He asked the court if it could imagine the ramifications of such a decision? "There is nothing uniform in nature. There is nothing uniform in this world. Our faces, our demeanor, our nature are all different and yet we wish to foist uniformity. It is ironic," Sibal said. The arguments will continue on December 9..Senior counsel NR Elango appeared for the petitioner.Senior counsel NL Rajah and advocate Suhirth Parthasarathy appeared for impleading petitioners, a former professor and a former vice chancellor of Anna University.Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, Additional Advocate General (SC) Amit Tiwari, and TN Advocate General R Shunmugasundaram appeared for the Tamil Nadu government.