Shri Rakesh Bhatnagar in his article "All are Equal in the Eyes of Law" (11 November) has spun out too broad a spectrum of generalisation related to the very sensitive issue of State vs Religion. He has ignored the basic premise that the legislature or the judiciary cannot "reform" the essentials of a religion and the Supreme Court has ruled that the essentials of a religion are to be identified in the light of internal i.e. scriptural evidence.

I hope Mr. Bhatnagar does not propose to feed "non- halal" meat to the Muslims or authorise the Supreme Court to promulgate a uniform civil code.

Another example he cites is about the spread of Friday congregation to the side-walks and even on parts of public roads, in one or two places in Mumbai. I feel that the authorities should allot more sites for Masjids, as the population grows, or at least permit the existing Masjid to add more floors to avoid such contingencies. In any case, the road should not have been totally blocked, even for a short time.

He has touched the customary procedure of divorce and maintenance. These questions must be judged in the light of the Quran and the Sunnah. Perhaps Mr. Bhatnagar is not aware that several Muslim sects reject "triple" or instantaneous divorce and that the Shariat makes the father responsible for the maintenance of his children upto a certain age, even if there is a divorce and the children are living with the mother. Even many Muslims would question the motivated use of the right to change religion for facilitating a marriage but can the misdeed of a few be reason enough to nullify a fundamental right of freedom of conscience for all.

The judiciary cannot sit in judgement over religious beliefs based on scriptures whether they are conducive to what he calls "secular living". Religion does not change according to the fashion of the time.

Secularism in the Indian context is an attribute of the State, not of the individual citizens who may well be orthodox in practising their faith but who must not lean towards or discriminate against any religious group in exercise of official function or authority. Law must equally protect all religions and all religious groups.