India’s barrier to household prohibition is constitutional federalism, not public opposition.

Evidence

India presents the most analytically developed case. The Juvenile Justice Act (2015) and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO, 2012) establish a child-protection architecture that has been interpreted by the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights as prohibiting corporal punishment in institutional settings. School prohibition was established by the Right to Education Act (2009), which prohibits “physical punishment and mental harassment” in schools. What remains is comprehensive household prohibition — and in India, the specific political challenge is not normative opposition (urban middle-class India shows a significant majority opposing physical punishment in UNICEF India prevalence surveys) but the intersection of the proposed prohibition with Article 26 of the Constitution, which protects religious institutions’ right to manage their own affairs, and with the diversity of customary family-law traditions across India’s twenty-eight states and eight union territories. — , The Rod and the Child, 8131

Categorization

• XREF: The Article 26 religious-autonomy obstruction parallels the Channel Six religious vector blocking West African prohibition in the Season 3 arc.