In a time when Christian communities across India are increasingly under pressure, one would expect the mainstream media to report with greater sensitivity and fairness. Yet, The Times of India’s recent article titled "Delhi’s St Stephen’s College imparts religious lessons, violates Supreme Court’s ruling in AMU case" (published on 30 March 2025) raises serious concerns about journalistic integrity and ideological bias. It appears less a piece of responsible reporting and more a pointed attempt to cast aspersions on one of India’s most respected minority institutions.
The article begins with an allegation that St Stephen’s College enforces religious instruction in violation of a Supreme Court ruling. According to TOI, the college mandates daily assemblies and compulsory religious instruction classes for Christian students, despite receiving government funding. The report implies this contravenes a recent Supreme Court judgment that prohibits compulsory religious education in government-funded minority institutions.
However, TOI provides no evidence that non-Christian students are being forced into religious activities. Nor does it report any formal complaints made to the college authorities by students or parents. The entire basis of the article rests on unnamed sources and a generalised interpretation of a Supreme Court ruling that was delivered in the context of Aligarh Muslim University but expanded to apply to all minority institutions receiving public funds.
What TOI fails to clarify is that St Stephen’s College is a partially funded institution. It receives grants from the University Grants Commission but also relies on private donations and endowments. The Supreme Court ruling does indeed apply to partially funded minority institutions, but its implementation must be rooted in actual violations, not speculative assumptions. More importantly, the ruling permits religious instruction if students opt for it voluntarily.
The article states: “All Christian students are required to attend these [religious instruction classes]. This goes against the rules. Just because someone is a Christian does not mean he or she should be forced to study religious teachings.” Yet, the quote comes from an anonymous source. No data is offered to show that Christian students objected or that their participation was against their will. In fact, Christian institutions around the world often include faith formation as part of their ethos. Is it then fair to single out St Stephen’s without accounting for its identity, tradition, and the community it serves?
Furthermore, the article cherry-picks excerpts from the college newsletter that reflect students’ personal expressions of faith. A student writes about Jude’s Epistle and the hope of salvation through Jesus Christ. Another offers a reflection on the true meaning of Christmas. These are not official dogma enforced by the administration, but personal accounts published in a community-facing publication. Should personal testimonies now be treated as institutional violations?
At a time when Christians in India face increasing incidents of violence, social exclusion, and vilification, such reporting does more harm than good. Instead of highlighting the resilience of minority institutions that continue to contribute to India’s academic and social landscape, TOI’s article risks fuelling resentment and mistrust. It places a venerable college under unnecessary suspicion without a shred of verified grievance.
This is not a call for media silence. It is a plea for responsible journalism - journalism that distinguishes between scrutiny and scapegoating, between public interest and ideological vendetta. In targeting St Stephen’s College without substantial evidence, TOI risks setting a precedent where minority institutions are perpetually under the scanner simply for practising their identity within legal and constitutional limits.
If students had raised a formal objection, if non-Christians were being coerced, if the administration had refused to comply with a direct legal order, such a report would have been necessary. But in the absence of any of these conditions, the article reads like an opportunistic jab. Media houses must be held to higher standards, especially when the stakes involve communal harmony and constitutional freedoms.
TOI must ask itself: Whose cause does it serve by stoking suspicion against a minority institution without hard evidence? And who bears the consequences of such insinuations?
Rev. Vijayesh Lal is the General Secretary of the Evangelical Fellowship of India.
