西游・降魔篇
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。
B | 总体而言，螺纹需求还未证伪，复产对现阶段原料有一定支撑，考虑到近期整个市场多头情绪高涨，短期黑色板块震荡偏多思路。螺纹盘面紧贴上一交易日小幅震荡，相对整个市场算弱势，符合目前基本面态势。夜盘方面，3800下方，原有多单持有，设好止盈；若加仓突破3800可加多，反复则减仓。铁矿2301上游在炉料供应偏紧且开工高企的背景下，短期或有一定的价格支撑。
C | 铁矿盘面上加仓价格上行，相对螺纹强势，按昨日分析不变。夜盘方面，在700~740观望，若加仓突破740可多单尝试，设好止损。
D | 沥青2212沥青盘面太不给力，高开低走，收在最低价附近，整体上沥青没站稳3850前，看空思路不变，考虑到原油端比较强，新单高空为主，并设好止损，避免意外。夜盘方面，按12日分析，3800下方有空单的持有，设好止损，跌破3700加仓，价格突破3870，空单止损离场观望。品种太多，以上只是夜盘前的分析，市场变化盘中会有调整，其他品种或即时策略可以交流，评论回复不了。
E | 赔小钱，赚大钱是期货交易必须坚持的思考原则。
F | 只要你一直沿着这条正确之路走下去，早晚会到达成功的彼岸。期市有风险，入市需谨慎，以上分析仅供参考，不作为决策依据。公众号：认识期货返回搜狐，查看更多责任编辑：
G |
Current article:http://t4nqoi.ninyakenhongnian.sbs/fcj6w/20260826/4830636.html
Published on:08:51:44