野猪大改造

SC delivers split verdict in Hijab case_我的网站

一 |     近日，社交媒体上传出一段视频，一名男子在地铁上公然抽电子烟，神态怪异，疑似嗑药。

二 | 视频显示，这名男子背靠车厢门，眼神迷离，在车门打开时，他因失去平衡几乎跌倒。    New Delhi, Oct 13 (UNI) A two-judge bench of the Supreme Court on Thursday delivered a split verdict in the Hijab ban case, and referred the matter to the Chief Justice's (CJI) court for his direction to constitute a larger bench to decide the issue.

The bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and Sudhanshu Dhulia delivered the verdict on a batch of appeals against the Karnataka High Court judgment upholding the hijab ban in educational institutions.

"We have divergent of opinion, I have framed 11 questions on the issue," Justice Hemant Gupta who led the bench said in hiss verdict.

While dismissing the batch of appeals filed by many students, Justice Gupta affirmed the high court's order on the hijab ban and said, "the matter be sent to the CJI for constituting a larger bench to hear the case."

The two-judge bench on September 26, had reserved its order, after hearing from all the parties -- 23 petitioners, their lawyers, and the Karnataka government for a marathon 10 days.

The apex court pronounced the verdict on 23 petitions, including that of, Aishat Shifa, and others.

The state government has argued in the Supreme Court that it had the authority to issue an order to educational institutions to follow the discipline of wearing the prescribed school uniforms.

Senior advocate Dushyant Dave, appearing for the students/ petitioners, argued that fundamental rights, freedom to choose to what to wear and freedom of faith would not diminish inside a classroom.

The lawyers for the students -- Devadatt Kamat, Dr Rajeev Dhavan amd Dishyant Dave -- submitted in the top court that the Karnataka State government had not presented even a single shred of evidence to support their claim that a few students wearing hijab to their classrooms in addition to their respective uniforms violated public order, health and morality.

The lawyers further said that the Karnataka government had not provide any material to support their claim that wearing hijab infringed on the fundamental rights of other students.

A Full Bench of the Karnataka High Court comprising Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi, Justice Krishna Dixit and Justice J M Khazi, in their judgement on March 15, this year, held that wearing of hijab by women was not an essential religious practice of Islam.

The high courts's three-judge bench, had dismissed the petitions filed by a group of Muslim girl students against PU government college for denying them entry while wearing Hijab.

The led by Chief Justice Awasthi dismissed the petition stating that the practice of hijab is not an essential practice under islam and thus does not fall within the ambit of Article 25 of the Constitution of India.

The High court had also held that prescription of school uniform is only a reasonable restriction which is constitutionally permissible which the students cannot object to and stated that the government had the power to issue such notification and that no case was made out against the government notification.

UNI SM ING。因此不少网民认为，该男子可能因嗑药神志不清，才敢在地铁这种禁烟区公然抽电子烟。

三 | 要知道在新加坡抽电子烟的犯法的，新加坡有许多禁烟区域，其中之一就是地铁。

四 | 违规者最高可被罚款1000新币。更严重的是，电子烟在新加坡是违法的，根据烟草（广告与销售控制）法令，拥有、吸食或购买电子烟者，最高可被罚款2000新币。

五 | 之前，就有许多在地铁上抽电子烟被抓的案例。此外，新加坡地铁上还禁止以下行为：吸烟（罚款500新币）携带易燃物品（罚款5000新币）饮食（罚款500新币）携带榴莲上车厢请大家多加留意以上地铁规则，以免被罚了还浑然不知。TH丨编辑HQ丨编审SGfollowsall丨来源SGfollowsall丨图源。

Current article:http://www.lichuorenrenyitankanmeimu.cfd/okv29/20260826/7882.doc

Published on:05:31:44