腾讯

最强可达超强台风级！“沙德尔”会登陆我国吗？最新研判→_我的网站

我爱我家

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。目前，多个热带系统正在活跃，南海热带低压和台湾东侧热带扰动将给我国沿海带来持续性降雨，同时远海台风“沙德尔”最强可达超强台风级别，也存在影响我国的可能。

B | 　　华东、华南将迎强降雨　　8月21日至23日，华东到华南沿海会是我国强降雨最多的区域，海南岛、广西、广东、福建、浙江、台湾岛等地部分地区有暴雨或大暴雨，海南局地累计降雨量可达300至400毫米。　　台风“沙德尔”最强可达超强台风级　　存在登陆我国可能　　台风“沙德尔”自19日生成后一直保持热带风暴级别，今天(21日)后强度将不断升级，最强可达超强台风级。　　8月26日以后，它的移动路径存在两种可能性，一种是西行登陆我国华东沿海；另一种是折向偏北方向移动，奔向日韩。预计要到下周，台风“沙德尔”的走势才会明朗，请保持密切关注。　　关注预警预报及时防范避险　　水利部和中国气象局8月20日18时联合发布黄色山洪灾害气象预警：预计8月20日20时至21日20时，海南西部、新疆北部等地部分地区发生山洪灾害可能性较大(黄色预警)。　　中央气象台8月21日10时继续发布暴雨蓝色预警：预计8月21日14时至22日14时，海南岛西部、广西南部、台湾岛南部、山东半岛南部等地部分地区有大暴雨(100～200毫米)。　　受热带低压影响　　海南落实各项防御举措　　中央气象台8月21日10时继续发布热带低压预报：北部湾热带低压的中心今天(21日)上午8点钟位于距离海南省东方市北方向约150公里的北部湾海面上，预计该热带低压将先在北部湾北部回旋少动并加强为热带风暴级。为及时组织辖区船舶做好防御工作，广西海事局已于8月20日9时启动防御台风二级应急响应。　　8月21日上午，南海低压已进入北部湾，广西壮族自治区水利厅决定自21日9时启动洪水防御四级应急响应。　　南海热带低压于昨天(20日)在海南文昌市龙楼镇沿海登陆。受其影响，今天(21日)进海南岛列车Z501、K511、Z8007、Z111次停运。　　史上最强厄尔尼诺，或要来了！　　对我国有何影响？　　当前赤道中东太平洋海表温度持续升高，预计将于11月至12月前后达到峰值，形成一次超强厄尔尼诺事件，大概率成为有观测记录以来最强的一次。　　鉴于厄尔尼诺仍在快速发展中，且其影响具有滞后性，事件发展的次年夏季，是要特别关注的时间段。