悟空传

台风“沙德尔”今日进入福建省热带气旋警戒区_我的网站

一 |     AI摘要      超强台风“沙德尔”预计27日至28日影响闽浙沿海。    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。

二 | 福州25日起有强降雨，需防范次生灾害。

三 | 福建要求沿海渔排人员及渔船分别于25日18时、26日12时前撤离进港避风。         记者24日从市气象台获悉，今年第18号台风“沙德尔”（超强台风级）预计将以每小时20公里~25公里的速度向西偏北方向移动，强度变化不大，25日下午至夜间进入福建省热带气旋警戒区，可能于27日夜间到28日上午在浙江南部到福建中部一带沿海登陆（台风级或强台风级），也可能在27日下午到夜间登陆台湾岛东部沿海，然后穿过台湾岛，于28日在福建中南部沿海登陆（强热带风暴级或台风级）。    市气象台预报，25日全市大雨到暴雨，部分大暴雨；26日全市阴有阵雨或雷阵雨，部分中雨，局部大雨；27日全市阴有中到大雨，部分暴雨。    市气象台提醒，需防范强降水可能引发的山洪和城乡积涝、塌方、滑坡等次生灾害；部分路段交通气象风险较高。此外，需密切关注“沙德尔”未来发展动态，气象部门将加强监测，及时发布预报预警。    又讯 省海洋与渔业局23日晚发布防御指令，全省沿海养殖渔排（含深远海养殖平台，下同）上的非劳动力人员务必于25日18时前全部撤离上岸；全省沿海养殖渔排上的劳动力人员，务必于26日12时前全部撤离上岸。全省海洋渔船（含远洋渔船，下同）务必于25日18时前进港避风，船上人员撤离上岸；外省海域的福建省海洋渔船必须严格遵守属地台风防御管理要求，落实各项防控措施。（记者 潘温祥 冯雪珠）。

Current article:http://ko4o.minshixuanhabing.bond/list_xer/dx9.html

Published on:08:43:04