#Thread on the South African Constitutional Court judgment allowing a Tamil Hindu girl to wear nose-stud in school as a cultural practice, which was cited by Sr Adv Kamat in #HijabBan case. Remarkable the manner in which SA court upheld minority rights & cultural diversity.
An interesting aspect from the South African judgment was that it did not go into whether wearing of the nose-stud was an essential or mandatory practice. What matters is if it is a "sincere belief".
Differentiating between mandatory and voluntary practice falls short of Constitutional project which promotes and celebrates diversity. We cannot celebrate diversity by permitting it only when no other option remains - what a beautiful exposition
The school argued that the infringement was not severe as she is asked to remove the nose ring only for a few hours at school. Court didn't agree saying it will send a symbolic message that she, her religion and her culture were not welcome and can infringe her identity.
Court said that the school should allow reasonable accommodation so as to ensure people who do not conform to certain social norms are not relegated to the margins.
The school argued that she is free to go to another school. Court said such an approach will marginalize minorities. "our constitution does not tolerate diversity as a necessary evil, but affirms it as one of the primary treasures of our nation"- what a beautiful exposition.
School argued that allowing nose-ring will lead to other claims and a "parade or horribles". Court said - "The display of religion & culture in public is not a parade of horribles but a pageant of diversity which will enrich our schools and in turn our country"- again, beautiful.
The South African Constitutional Court's judgement is a brilliant affirmation of the principles of tolerance and accomodation. The broad Constitutional vision expressed to uphold and celebrate cultural diversity is remarkable.
Perhaps, SA's ugly tryst with apartheid might have prompted the court to lean towards protecting cultural minorities and pluralism. The judgment is a must read. It can enrich & broaden your vision. The language is simple but beautiful. Humanity pulsates throughout the judgment.
OpIndia @OpIndia_com has published an article written by its Chief Editor Nupur Sharma @UnSubtleDesi targeting LiveLaw @LiveLawIndia. The article is malicious, factually wrong & a blatant misrepresentation of the court proceedings, which can amount to contempt of court. Thread
The summary of the mischievous article is that LiveLaw, in its ‘X’ handle, posted misinformation about a petition filed by Sharjeel Imam.
The thread below will explain how the OpIndia article is terribly wrong.
LiveLaw had posted that Sharjeel Imam’s petition regarding bail in the Delhi riots larger conspiracy case was listed before a bench of Justices Bela Trivedi & SC Sharma on October 22. LiveLaw had also updated that the matter was posted to Oct 25 as it was not taken up that day.
Petitioner : Expelling student for not wearing uniform disproportionate.
Bench : You're not expelled.
Petitioner : I'm denied entry. Same effect as expulsion.
Bench : If someone expelled from train for not having ticket, can it be termed disproportionate? #HijabBan#KarnatakaHC
A good judgement to read on #MayDay is the 2020 SC judgment which quashed the Gujarat Govt order exempting Factories from paying overtime wages to workers. The Court emphatically said that " a workers’ right to life cannot be contingent on the mercy of employer
or the State"
Notably, the judgment acknowledged that labour rights are "hard won" rights which cannot be diluted citing the excuse of pandemic.
State cannot permit exploitation of workers making their "hard won" rights illusory, SC said. #MayDay2021
During pandemic, State should be more protective of workers than diluting their rights citing difficulties of employer.
"...financial losses cannot be offset on the weary shoulders of
the laboring worker, who provides the backbone of the economy", the Court said.
Scenes from a court after fundamental rights have been linked to fundamental duties.
Lawyer : My client has been jailed for writing against the government.
Judge : Why would anyone write against the govt? Is it something expected of a good citizen?
Lawyer : No my lord. But it may be seen that my client is a dutiful citizen. He has donated to the PMCARES . Has installed all apps of govt. He signs national anthem before movies. Regularly watches republic day parades and the channels of the Republic.
Judge : Oh okay. In that case, bail granted subject to condition that he will use social media only to retweet national leaders for next 10 days.
"once we perform our duties, rights will automatically be safeguarded"
So on this #ConstitutionDay what do we see : 1. Nearly 10 lakh people in JK denied rights to access 4G internet despite SC pronouncements on proportionality principle. 2. Discussions about bringing State monitoring over citizens' decisions to choose life partner and religion.
3. A Supreme Court which is getting increasingly wary of holding the executive to account to the constitution. 4. Increased state intolerance towards citizen movements and protests. Use of sedition, NSA, UAPA to crack down dissent. #ConstitutionDay
5. Parliament which acts like a rubber stamp passing laws without effective discussions. 6. Increased impunity for hate speech against minorities. 7. Election Commission not doing anything to control brazen communal propaganda in elections.
It makes me proud to note that many important High Court judgments are brought to the public domain FIRST by LiveLaw @LiveLawIndia. The latest one is the recent Allahabad HC order on inter faith marriages.
This important order, which had been lying obscure, was traced out by @ISparshUpadhyay. Another recent example is the CIC's damning order in the Aarogya Seri RTI issue, which was discovered by Akshita @_Akshita_Saxena.
There are other examples too of LiveLaw sparking public discussions by bringing to public knowledge HC orders which were remaining unnoticed by many.
For eg : 1. Bombay HC order on vilification of Tablighi Jamaat followers.
2.Kerala HC order on right to access internet in hostels