‘Why can’t two communities celebrate together,’ Calcutta HC raps Mamata

Questioning the West Bengal government’s curbs on Durga idol immersion, the Calcutta High Court   has said the state cannot hinder a citizen’s right to practice religion on the basis of a mere assumption of law and order disruption and must provide sound reasons for doing so.

The West Bengal government has imposed restriction on Durga idol immersion  on 30 September, the Vijaya Dashami day, after 10 pm and no immersion would be allowed on 1 October, the day Muharram is scheduled to be observed.

“Let them  live in harmony, do not create a line between them,” Acting Chief Justice Rakesh Tiwary said, asking the government to provide a “concrete ground” for its decision to stop the immersion of Durga idols after 10 pm on 30 September (Vijaya Dashami day) and on 1 October on account of Muharram.

Hearing three PILs challenging the restrictions on immersion of idols at the end of the five-day Durga Puja festival, a bench, also comprising Justice Harish Tandon, said a mere assumption that a law-and-order situation might arise, owing to Vijaya Dashami and Muharram falling one after the other, could not be the basis of imposing curbs on immersion timings.

Observing that Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee had herself told a public meeting that Hindus and Muslims lived together in harmony in the state, the bench said, “Listen to what the head of the state says and not a police officer.” “People have the right to practise their religious activities, whichever community they may be of, and the state cannot put restriction unless it has a concrete ground to believe that two communities cannot live together,” the acting chief justice said.

“You must clarify why are you apprehending a law-and-order situation,” the bench told state Advocate General (AG) Kishore Dutta, who claimed that it was the administration’s prerogative to decide on steps to prevent any untoward situation.”Public order and law-and-order are administrative issues,” Dutta submitted, while claiming that the court’s interference in it would amount to trudging into the administration’s domain.