qq

Asking a PU schoolgirl to take off her hijab at her school gate, is an invasion on her privacy: Justice Dhulia_我的网站

A |     New Delhi, Oct 13 (UNI) One of the judges in the Supreme Court bench, Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, differed with the view of his colleague, Justice Hemant Gupta on many issues.

Justice Dhulia said that asking a pre university schoolgirl to take off her hijab at her school gate, is an invasion on her privacy and dignity.

"Asking a pre university schoolgirl to take off her hijab at her school gate, is an invasion on her privacy and dignity. It is an attack on their dignity, and then ultimately it is a denial to them of secular education. These are clearly violative of Article 19(1)(a), Article 21, and Article 25(1) of the Constitution of India," Justice Dhulia said, in his verdict.

"Under our Constitutional scheme, wearing a hijab should be simply a matter of Choice. It may or may not be a matter of essential religious practice, but it still is, a matter of conscience, belief, and expression. If she wants to wear hijab, even inside her class room, she cannot be stopped, if it is worn as a matter of her choice, as it may be the only way her conservative family will permit her to go to school, and in those cases, her hijab is her ticket to education," Justice Dhulia said, in his verdict.

Justice Dhulia even went onto say that the unfortunate fallout of the hijab restriction would be that we would have denied education to a girl child. A girl child for whom it is still not easy to reach her school gate.This case here, therefore, has also to be seen in the perspective of the challenges already faced by a girl child in reaching her school.

"The question this Court would put before itself is also whether we are making the life of a girl child any better by denying her education merely because she wears a hijab!," Justice Dhulia questioned?

Our Constitution has visualised a just society and it is for this reason that the first virtue that is secures for the citizens is ‘Justice’ which is the first of our Preambular promises, he said.

On the other hand, the judge heading the bench of the Supreme Court, Justice Hemant Gupta, differed with the view of Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and said that the Government (Karnataka) Order cannot be said to be contrary to the State goal of promoting literacy and education as mandated under the Constitution.

"Article 21A is not applicable as all the students are over 14 years of age. The students have a right to education under Article 21, but not of insisting on wearing something additional to the uniform, in a secular school, as a part of their religion," Justice Gupta, heading the bench of the Top Court said.

"Secularism applicable to all citizens. Permitting one religious community to wear religious symbols would be antithesis of secularism. Govt Order can't be said to be against secularism or objective of Karnataka Education Act," Justice Gupta in his 133-page, out of 209-page, verdict said.

"It can't be said that State is restricting the access to education to the girl students through such an Order. The Government Order only ensures that the uniform prescribed is adhered to by the students and it cannot be said that State is restricting the access to education to the girl students through such an Order, Justice Gupta said.

He went on to say that the Act itself contemplates providing of opportunities and facilities in a healthy manner and maintaining the dignity of childhood and youth so that there is no moral or material abandonment. "The uniform for the students has been prescribed so that there is no distinction between the students coming from diverse background and that each student grows in an environment of equality, fairness and equal opportunities," Justice Gupta said.

The uniform is an equalizer of inequalities. Therefore, prescribing uniform for children at an impressionable age is not only important but has a salutary effect on the mental development of the child to grow in the environment of oneness, he said.

Justice Gupta, find that the following 11 questions arise for consideration in the present appeals:

Whether the appeals should be heard along with Kantaru Rajeevaru (Right to Religion) and/or should the present appeals be referred to the Constitution Bench.?

Whether the State Government could delegate its decision to implement the wearing of uniform by the College Development Committee or the Board of Management or otherwise on headscarves is ex facie violative of Section 143 of the Act?

What is ambit and scope of the right to freedom of ‘conscience’ and ‘religion’ under Article 25? What is the ambit and scope of essential religious practices under Article 25 of the Constitution?

UNI SM BAV GNK。    北京时间8月16日，NBA进入休赛期。有关NBA 2K27的球员初始能力值榜单迎来爆料，知名体育媒体SleeperHoops提前曝光了游戏能力值前十球员的完整名单与具体评分。截至目前，NBA 2K官方尚未发布任何正式的能力值公告，本次曝光数据仍为预热爆料版本。

B |          根据泄露的最新榜单，掘金球星约基奇与雷霆球星亚历山大以98分的超高总评并列全联盟第一，成为2K27现役能力值的两大领头羊。作为三届常规赛MVP、总冠军得主，约基奇的赛场统治力毋庸置疑，而亚历山上赛季凭借攻防一体的极致表现带领球队稳居西部强队行列，虽然两人上赛季都未能带队夺冠，但是登顶评分榜单也印证了其现役顶级球星的地位。         紧随其后的是三人97分梯队，分别是文班亚马、东契奇和字母哥。新生代天才文班亚马持续展现超高成长上限，上赛季拿到常规赛DPOY，并带领马刺队打入总决赛。东契奇凭借稳定的顶级持球进攻能力稳居前列，字母哥新赛季转投热火队，他依靠强悍的身体天赋与攻防稳定性牢牢占据顶级行列。         榜单中段，布伦森、爱德华兹以96分并列第七，两人均是联盟中生代与新生代后卫的标杆球员，尤其是布伦森上赛季带领尼克斯队夺冠彰显自己的实力。老牌巨星方面，库里以95分位列第八，杜兰特与新星坎宁安同以93分位居前十末尾。         大家对于这份榜单是否认可呢？欢迎在评论区给出你们的看法。

C |

Current article:http://vbnx.rangnehongranlinren.bond/4ls5uz/20260826/7836.html

Published on:15:34:33