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。 近日，娱乐圈传来令人惋惜的噩耗，曾凭借绝佳唱功爆红全网的中国台湾排湾族童星歌手徐杰不幸离世，年仅27岁。昔日他在选秀舞台上的惊艳演唱片段再度被网友翻出，成为大众缅怀这位天才歌手的珍贵回忆。据媒体报道，徐杰于上月19日凌晨遗憾离世，短暂的人生永远定格在了27岁。消息曝光后，众多网友深感痛心，纷纷追忆这位年少成名、天赋过人的“美声小歌王”。
B | 徐杰自幼展现出远超同龄人的音乐天赋，嗓音干净通透、情感细腻饱满，年少时便频繁参与各大电视歌唱赛事，凭借扎实的唱功收获无数认可。而他人生最经典、最被大众熟知的高光时刻，发生在11岁那年。彼时，徐杰以“踢馆魔王”的身份登上知名选秀节目《超级偶像》舞台，挑战当届赛事强者。节目中，他深情演绎张韶涵的经典曲目《遗失的美好》，没有刻意炫技，却以超越年龄的共情力和纯净嗓音征服全场评委与观众，凭借稳定且极具感染力的演唱，一举击败了当届节目冠军朱俐静，一战封神。在无修音、无后期加持的直播年代，11岁的徐杰展现出的专业唱功堪称惊艳，这段比赛片段此后在网络持续发酵，全网播放量突破千万，让他成为风靡全台的人气童星，也被网友和媒体冠以“美声小歌王”的美誉。徐杰离世的消息曝光十分突然。此前，有网友在社交平台Threads上分享他当年的比赛名场面，感慨其唱功出众，并留言询问其近况，未曾想最终等来的却是他离世的噩耗，突如其来的消息让无数粉丝与网友倍感惋惜。据了解，成年后的徐杰并未放弃自己的音乐梦想，远赴泰国攻读大学的同时，始终坚持深耕歌唱领域，延续自己的音乐热爱。奈何造化弄人，徐杰不幸患上肝病，长期饱受病痛折磨，尽管他一直积极配合治疗，但病情始终未能好转。家人心疼其身体状况，在约一年前特意安排他返回台湾就医，全力为其诊治，可惜最终还是没能留住这位年轻的歌手。上月26日，徐杰的家人为其低调举办了告别追思礼拜，在至亲好友的陪伴与祝福中，他安静走完了短暂的一生。随后，网络上流出多张告别仪式的相关照片，据称为教会牧师所分享。照片中的徐杰怀抱小狗，眉眼温柔，露出阳光干净的笑容，一如当年那个在舞台上发光发热的少年，模样治愈又温暖。年少成名、天赋斐然，却遗憾止步于青春年华。如今，千万播放的经典舞台画面，成为大众缅怀徐杰的唯一念想。不少网友留言悼念，愿这位怀揣音乐梦想的少年，在天堂无病痛、继续放声歌唱。
Current article:http://2yvd.sunmougadangwaizhuimi.bond/9ux4l/sl8jq.html
Published on:02:16:47
