By Vikram Kilpady
What is served and what is not in one of the Supreme Court compound’s six canteens during the opening days of the ongoing Navratri festival kicked up a row over dietary choices among advocates. The apex court is the last domain for those seeking justice, and a canteen in its premises became grounds for a debate that has raged for well over a decade in the rest of the country.
On one side were advocates who wanted Navratri-friendly food (vegetarian, vrat fare without onion and garlic) to be served to them in the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA)-run canteen. On the other, the ones who were denied their share of chicken, etc., and the larger freedom of eating what they wanted.
The kerfuffle revolved around these two groups and their respective letters, first by the Eaters of Meats and then by Team Navratri. It must be noted that this very canteen was serving festival fare to begin with. The other five canteens, as per reports, were working without any curbs.
The first two days of Navratri fell on Thursday (October 3) and Friday (October 4) and were followed by the week-long break for the Court, when the advocates can eat as they wish, at home or elsewhere.
The issue came into the limelight on WhatsApp, where else, when some advocates protested the decision to serve only Navratri fare at the SCBA canteen. Located on the ground floor of the Supreme Court building, it is obviously the easiest to access and thus sees more footfall.
The first group, whose names aren’t public, shot off a letter to the SCBA and the Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association (SCAORA) protesting the menu restrictions.
To mollify them, non-vegetarian items were served in the canteen the very next day. This ended up raising the hackles of the second group.
The second group, comprising 133 lawyers, then wrote a “counter” to the first letter, detailing their grouse and affixing their signatures. They said the decision to serve Navratri fare was intended to respect the religious traditions of the majority of the advocates.
The counter-letter said millions of Hindus celebrate the festival of Navratri and traditionally abstain from eating non-vegetarian food and dishes which have onions and garlic. They said the decision to serve such fare was only for two days since the week-long vacations followed.
“It’s a matter of common knowledge that many of the members of the bar and also junior/assisting lawyers of the members of bar scrupulously follow 9 days of abstinence from non-veg food or food having garlic or onion during the holy week of Navratra. Most of them do not even eat from a kitchen where onion and garlic is used in preparation of other food,” the letter said.
While speaking of the unbroken line of the tradition of keeping vrat, the advocates emphasised that it was for a short duration only. “It is unfortunate that for two days such an attempt was made to unnecessarily criticise the decision,” the letter said. They criticised the objections by the first group as an “unwarranted controversy’, and maintained that not observing dietary rigour would undermine the beliefs of those observing the festival.
The Supreme Court Bar makes room for varied religious practices, the letter noted, adding this is in keeping with the promotion of the pluralist ethos. The letter noted that there were several eateries within the Supreme Court complex where other eating choices were available and that too without restrictions for advocates not bound by religious and dietary norms.
The letter notes that the authors of the first missive had also erroneously cited the pluralist traditions of the Supreme Court Bar. “Non serving (sic) of non-vegetarian or food with onion-garlic to cater to the wishes of a few is not in keeping with our pluralist traditions and would result in lack of respect for each other,” said the second letter, quoting the first.
It also noted that the first letter was written by a few advocates who have never ordered food from the canteen in question.
Again, what seemed to have irked the second group of lawyers is that the authors of the first letter had suggested that those observing the fast should have carted their own Navratri fare from their homes.
In their response, the pro-Navratri bunch called such an idea tone-deaf and said it overlooked the practical difficulties suffered by many lawyers in their Navratri observance.
They said the religious beliefs of many lawyers were being mocked by the first group and sought the continuation of Navratri fare being served in that lone canteen.
The second letter also makes a pointed reference to the number of advocates in favour of Navratri fare. “The SCBA had 2,795 members as per the 2024 voters list, however, it appears that the aforesaid direction was passed, in haste, by the office-bearers of SCBA, unilaterally, on the basis of letter dated 3.10.2024 signed by only a handful of members, without consulting or taking into consideration the sentiments or viewpoint of the majority of the member of the bar.”
It then strays into political parlance where the word “appeasement” creeps in, after due deference accorded to sentiments, pluralist traditions and the abjuring of intolerance and lack of respect.
The issue of State clampdowns on gustatory choices has been a marked feature of the celebration of festivals over the last decade and has regularly found headline space. It began over the cow and its protection, then extended to the larger bovine family. Then came the enforced shuttering of shops selling goat meat and fish in large parts of the country during Hindu festivals, all in the name of hygiene. Nowadays, it is a brave grocer who continues to stock eggs during Hindu festivals. Such polarisation has had its political windfall.
It is an irony that the very many who want butcher’s shops shut for the festivals can polish off an extraordinary number of kebabs and biryanis when the gods and the calendar permit.
While shops selling meat, fish and eggs are under watch, there seem to be no restrictions on ordering and relishing the finest cut of meat from apps sold en masse and at a discount to boot. This is not to blight those who get by on app-based gourmet viands and fish delivery companies during these lean times.
The early years of the country’s decade of meatless days saw some protest and grumbling, but as time went by, the hurt went away. Like the frog in a pot being heated on a stove, citizens, especially the poor and the marginalised, who enjoy meat but can’t afford regular animal protein, ended up turning vegetarian in a largely “non-vegetarian by diet” India.
Alas, several lives have also been lost to “lynching” over the kind of meat a victim might have in the refrigerator. Killing is murder, lynching is a comfortable euphemism.
This is not to say that any one side in the canteen row is right. There is no guarantee for absolute freedom in the Constitution, it is couched and padded by reasonable limits. But in this “one man’s meat is another man’s poison” situation, the carcass on the table could be that of an erstwhile tolerance, once ubiquitous, now quartered and curried.
That begs a twist on Hamlet: to serve or not to serve? The answer would come pat: check the calendar!