I can’t understand the attitude of some lawyers. If they do not want to eat non veg food during Navratri, they need not do so. But why should they compel non veg people to be denied non veg food in the Supreme Court Bar Association canteen during Navratri, as was demanded by 100 Supreme Court lawyers recently ?
Once when I was a Judge of the Allahabad High Court, the judges gave a dinner in honour of a senior judge who was retiring. The dinner was held in the hall opposite the Chief Justice’s chamber, and no lawyers or spouses were invited.
It was a sitting dinner, with judges sitting in a circle. Before it was held, many vegetarian judges said they would not sit next to a judge eating non veg food, and they threatened to boycott the dinner if they were made to sit next to such a judge.
Now normally the seating arrangement of judges in such dinners was in accordance with seniority, but the arrangement had to be totally changed, to accomodate the wishes of such vegetarian judges.
Was this rational behaviour on the part of the latter ? I submit this only reflected the feudal mentality of such judges. After all, no one was compelling them to eat non veg food. Why the allergy to even sit next to a brother judge eating it ?
When I related this story to a friend, he said that I was being inconsistent, since I had given a judgment in the Supreme Court, Hinsa Virodhak Sangh vs Mirzapur Moti Kuresh Jamaat, 2011, in which I held that closure of the Ahmedabad slaughterhouse for 9 days during the Jain paryushan festival, which compelled non vegetarians of Ahmedabad to become vegetarians for 9 days, was valid, as it was done out of respect for the religious sentiments of the Jain community.
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/560071
I replied that I have had doubts about the correctness of my judgment ever since I delivered it.
Par ab chidiyan chug gayin khet.
Breaking News