Projected sorrow
Sir — The internet is obsessed with lonely animals — be it the penguin who walked away from its colony towards icy peaks or, more recently, the baby monkey at a zoo in Japan that was abandoned and mistreated by its troop. Both creatures displayed ordinary animal behaviour. Yet humans found in them heartbreaking allegories for their own lives. Human loneliness, exhaustion and alienation are being projected onto these creatures. This should not be mistaken for empathy for the actual animals — none knows what happened to the penguin or its colony. It is simply anthropomorphism and narcissism at their finest.
Rima Roy,
Calcutta
Uncertainty ahead
Sir — The Supreme Court of the United States of America has delivered a clear reminder of why constitutional limits still matter (“Top court nixes Trump tariffs”, Feb 21). In Learning Resources Inc versus Trump, the US chief justice, John G. Roberts, stated that the power to impose tariffs rests with Congress. Tariffs are taxes, and the Constitution assigns taxation to legislators. President Donald Trump relied on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, which does not mention tariffs. The ruling restores a basic separation of powers and affirms that emergency laws cannot be stretched beyond their text.
Chitra Ghosh,
Calcutta
Sir — President Donald Trump’s decision to raise tariffs to 15% globally after the Supreme Court struck down his earlier regime deepens uncertainty among traders (“15%: Trump’s new global tariff”, Feb 22). Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 permits temporary measures, yet limits them to 150 days unless Congress extends them. Businesses now face shifting rates and possible refunds of billions already collected. Such volatility complicates trade planning and investment decisions across sectors that depend on predictable import costs and stable commercial rules.
Rupak G. Duarah,
Guwahati
Sir — The financial consequences of the tariff dispute in the US are significant. Federal data indicate that more than $133 billion was collected under the IEEPA. Following the Supreme Court ruling, importers have filed hundreds of claims seeking refunds. Larger corporations may navigate the legal process with relative ease. Smaller firms are likely to struggle with costs and delays. Prolonged litigation will tie up public resources and extend commercial uncertainty.
P. Victor Selvaraj,
Tirunelveli, Tamil Nadu
Sir — The language used by Donald Trump against members of the Supreme Court is troubling. After the judgment, he described the justices as unpatriotic and disloyal. Such remarks undermine respect for judicial independence. The US chief justice, John G. Roberts, and the justices, Amy Coney Barrett and Neil Gorsuch, have supported the administration in many previous cases. Public disagreement is legitimate. Personal attacks against judges weaken confidence in institutions that rely on public trust to function effectively. But Trump does not understand such nuances.
Dhananjay Sinha,
Calcutta
Sir — The recent ruling of the Supreme Court with regard to the tariff that had been levied by Donald Trump has implications beyond America. Governments that negotiated trade arrangements with Washington must reassess their positions. India has adopted a cautious approach while awaiting
clarity. Other partners, including the United Kingdom and Taiwan, face similar dilemmas. Agreements struck under one tariff structure may no longer align with domestic political realities. Diplomatic engagement will require careful recalibration as legal authority shifts from executive discretion back towards Congress.
S.K. Choudhury,
Bengaluru
Power of protest
Sir — The disruption at the India AI Impact Summit 2026 by Youth Congress workers deserves calmer assessment than the immediate outrage it provoked (“‘Shameless’ tag on shirtless protest”, Feb 21). Protests are designed to be seen. An international summit represents concentrated power and global attention. Choosing such a venue signals disagreement with decisions that are ordinarily perceived as being insulated from scrutiny. Concern about damage to India’s image overlooks a basic democratic principle — public dissent, when peaceful, reflects institutional confidence rather than fragility and strengthens accountability in public life.
Pratima Chakraborty,
Calcutta
Sir — Criticism of the protest at the AI summit rests heavily on the idea of national embarrassment. This concern appears misplaced. Democracies are judged on their tolerance of disagreement. When protesters enter elite forums, they may inconvenience organisers but they force engagement with underlying anxieties regarding policy matters. Shielding high-profile gatherings from visible dissent risks reinforcing distance between decision-makers and citizens.
Noopur Baruah,
Tezpur, Assam
Juvenile policy
Sir — The Gujarat government’s requirement of parental consent for marriage registration is in conflict with settled constitutional principles. Article 21 protects personal liberty, including the freedom to choose a spouse. In Laxmibai Chandaragi B. versus State of Karnataka, the Supreme Court held that family consent is unnecessary when two adults agree to marry. Introducing administrative barriers revives social control over adult decisions. Policy must align with constitutional guarantees, not undermine them through procedural conditions.
Manzar Imam Qasmi,
Purnea, Bihar
Sir — Judicial precedent has consistently affirmed autonomy in matters of marriage. In Shafin Jahan vs Ashokan K.M., the Supreme Court upheld the right of a 24-year-old woman to choose her partner and religion, rejecting paternalistic reasoning. Courts have emphasised dignity and privacy as core constitutional values. Administrative insistence on parental consent contradicts this jurisprudence and risks inviting legal challenge. Legislative and executive actions must respect the boundaries defined by constitutional interpretation as they are meant to shield individual autonomy.
Dattaprasad Shirodkar,
Mumbai