| (The Editor's Pick is a new newsletter from The Hindu that provides a snapshot of the most important stories from today's edition of our newspaper, along with a note from our top editors on why we chose to give prominence to these stories.) While giving its order on a petition by some Jain temples in Mumbai on Friday, the Supreme Court asked States why they were giving priority to economic activities over religious ones. While the Centre had allowed religious places to operate from June 8 subject to certain guidelines, several States, including Maharashtra, continue to disallow religious congregations. In its order, the Supreme Court allowed the plea of the three Mumbai Jain temples to open for the two days of the Paryushan festival with 5 people at a time and 250 people a day. The court also said it was willing to consider similar allowances for places of worship of all religions. The Supreme Court has stressed that this order is a one-off and does not set a precedent, especially since the Ganesh Chaturthi festivities have started. But it brings the focus back to the question whether religious practices are essential activities. The Hindu, in our editorial on June 10 on the reopening of religious places, had argued that all optional activities should be postponed to "a time when there is better disease control, and prevention and treatment courses are available." The larger question that the court has raised, along with the possible wiggle room that the order gives religious organisations to approach courts against State-specific lockdown norms, gives this story its importance. (Since there is no print edition of The Hindu tomorrow, the Editor's Pick newsletter will return on Monday.) | 
Post a Comment