Happy meal
Sir — The tremors in West Asia can be felt all the way in West Bengal. But they led to a surprisingly fun day for the students of a government school in the state who were served phuchkas for their mid-day meal owing to the shortage of LPG cylinders. While this is not a substitute for a nutritious meal involving staples, one is forced to wonder if it is not in fact better than the watered down dal and undercooked rice that many schools are known to serve. Phuchkas cannot replace balanced nutrition in the long term but it is heartening that the school ensured that children were fed even amidst a crisis.
Meghna Roy Chowdhury,
Calcutta
Delicate matter
Sir — The Supreme Court will confront a delicate terrain when it hears Kantaru Rajeevaru versus Indian Young Lawyers’ Association — the review of the Sabarimala verdict. It is listed before a nine-judge Constitution bench from April 7-22. The case highlights a difficult legal question. Courts are required to examine religious practices while also protecting constitutional rights. This creates tension because judges must interpret beliefs that are deeply personal. The Constitution allows freedom of religion but places limits when equality and dignity are affected. Clear guidelines are necessary so that courts do not overstep into theology. Legal decisions should remain grounded in rights rather than belief, ensuring fairness.
Monidipa Mondal,
Calcutta
Sir — The Sabarimala review raises concerns about how religious freedom is understood. Articles 25 and 26 protect both individuals and religious groups, yet conflicts arise when group practices restrict personal access. The earlier judgment allowed entry of women, emphasising equality. That approach reflects constitutional values but it also challenges long-standing traditions. Courts must carefully balance these competing interests. Decisions should explain clearly why certain practices are restricted so that the public understands the reasoning and trusts the process.
Anupam Neogi,
Calcutta
Sir — There is growing discomfort with courts deciding what counts as an essential religious practice. This responsibility places judges in a position that resembles theological authority. The Shirur Mutt case created a framework, yet its application remains inconsistent. A more precise legal standard would help reduce confusion. Courts should focus on whether a practice violates fundamental rights instead of determining its religious importance. This would limit judicial intrusion into belief while still protecting constitutional guarantees.
Aloke Kumar,
Gaya
Misplaced priority
Sir — The recent arrests in Kashi over an iftar gathering on the Ganga presents troubling questions. The river is revered across communities and its spirit is not exclusionary. Allegations based on unclear evidence should not lead to swift criminal action. Law enforcement must act with restraint and verify facts before detaining individuals. Public sentiment cannot replace due process. Respect for faith must be matched by respect for rights, especially in shared public spaces.
M. Jeyaram,
Sholavandan, Tamil Nadu
Sir — Concerns about pollution of the Ganga deserve serious attention, not allegations of an iftar party on the river. The river faces continuous damage from industrial waste, sewage, and ritual offerings. Targeting a small group over alleged actions distracts from larger environmental failures. Authorities should prioritise long-term solutions, including stricter regulation and better waste management. Protecting the river from human depredations is of prime importance.
B. Sanyal,
Calcutta