We want LI to be one of the friendliest places on the internet, where lawyers and law students help each other with their career related queries and occasionally discuss other stuff that might affect their lives too. In other words:
1. Be kind, respectful and helpful to each other.
2. Be bona fide, truthful, genuine and curious.
3. Assume the best intention of others.
Therefore, in using the site, you must agree to do your best to uphold these community guidelines.
Note that what you find here is written and moderated by anonymous people on the internet.
Therefore everything you read here is very likely unverified, rumour, speculation and/or downright false.
In continuing to read anything here, you must therefore agree not to take anything you read here as factual and that you will exercise due caution, diligence and common sense before acting on any information you may come across here.
You also agree to report any inaccurate or malicious comments with the buttons. Moderators take action within 24 hours, as required and appropriate under law.
Our full terms and conditions apply too.
Do you solemnly agree to all of the above?
My guess is that the HC will leave it to the colleges to decide. So if a girl in NLSIU wears a hijab it is up to the college to allow it or not. I don't think the HC will either say that hijab must be allowed or must be banned.
Gautam Bhatia: While Upholding Hijab Ban, Karnataka HC Misconstrued Several Constitutional Principles
Article by noted jurist Gautam Bhatia on hijab ban: useful for students as this will be discussed in constitutional law classes in the coming days.
https://thewire.in/law/karnataka-high-court-order-hijab-ban-constitutional-principles
I will not feel any different, lmao. The fact that you had to mention this as an example has me laughing - sorry.
Why do you think someone else dressed weirdly would bother me? And the fact that it bothers you is really a personal problem at your level.
2. Tilak, vermilion, sacred thread.
3. Rings with stones, talismans including Cross.
Hope you use the same outrage against these too. Which I know you do not.
2. Hijab/Burkha is the epitome of female opression.
3. They don't raise as much security concerns as Burkha/Hijab. case in point Sri Lankan bombings.
4. UCC is a directive principle.
5. If not rings and sacred wrist threads, we have to draw a line somewhere. Numerous laws and fundamental rights judgement which have been universally acclaimed have been based on the premises of drawing a line somewhere, of reasonable restrictions and the fact that your freedom ends where my nose begins. Datar and the honorable HC and various other legal luminaries have accepted this as a fine judgement.
We were all looking at the new tomorrow until somehow well funded pockets have managed to spread the propaganda of religiosity as something to be welcome. They used the ape shit craziness of wokeistan and said, 'see this is your modernity', and that made some of the progressivists see sense in conservative attitudes.
I am waiting for the day we are behind all these regressive shiznits in the name of religiosity. We should be gazing at the stars and examining secrets of the universe. No, some numbnuts want to cry about protecting some imaginary creature's idea of a docile woman.