I will skip the political correctness and give you an honest answer, as someone who have travelled all over the world. Post 9/11 and ISIS, Muslim men and women are judged negatively throughout the world if they carry visible symbols of being a practising Muslim, such as a beard, skullcap, hijab and burkha Even liberal European heads of state have openly expressed such views.

In India, many people equate the wearing of a skullcap/hijab/niqab negatively, but there is MUCH MUCH less racism than in the West. In the West, you will never be truly accepted in a skullcap/hijab/niqab, but in India if you are good at your work people will grow to respect you irrespective of what you wear.

Law firm perspective as an associate -

As long as you churn out the drafts and redlines, people don't really care about much else. In places where they do care about things other than that, you ideally ought to exit anyhow because of intrusions into personal space and lack of professionalism.

I've never had a situation where the clients i saw would have a problem with religious expression. In the off chance it does happen, tell your partner that it is not acceptable and you require remedial action. If the partners doesn't comply, jump ship - law firms are anyhow a game of musical chairs.

Assumptions of a law firm associate who vaguely interacts with litigators -

There are perfectly professional people who are litigators, doing great work, would absolutely obliterate a law firm partner in terms of the understanding of law and plain and simple brains. However, the eco system also allows a much larger degree of politics and political flavoured conduct in everything. Does that mean that you would face any sort of absurdity / negative conduct on the regular? Most definitely no. Is the likelihood of it happening higher in this eco system vs. the law firm eco system? I believe so.

If you want to practice or profess your religion, you could very-well do that within the bounds of your own house or place of worship. A educational institution or private institution is not the forum for it. If your religious doctrines are so inseparable and bothering your to pick between religion and career, I would strongly suggest that your stick with the former, since its so close to your heart. Cannot put it more succinctly than this.

In case you work at the places that perform religious ceremonies / festivities in office (a lot of the big firms do on Holi and / or Diwali), i hope you have the courage to tell everyone to shut the show down because offices aren't a place of religious expression.

And also comment that on the LinkedIn posts of the firms that put up pictures of such celebrations or other pictorial greetings, since you do seem to be a fan of preaching the importance of divorcing office from religion.

Unless it's the anonymity here that gives you the lack of awareness to spew your garbage here?

I will not divide the answer on the basis of 'Law firm V. Litigation (court)' . You want to practise your religion with your work and that's why confused. That's good. Here's what you can do:-

1. Ask what you want to do. Dont make up scenarios in your head. Imagine you are a man. This trick is called 'fixing variables' . Imagine that everything will be same if you choose any option. I mean, you will receive same treatment whethr you join law firm or litigation. Now answer - what attracts you more and why?

2. Coming back to your surface-level question which is better. See dear the basis of your division is 'Law Firm V. Litigation. It is tough to answer it on that basis. We even have judges who are staunch orthodox religious supporters and same people anywhere else. It depends on human to human. We dont know where you land up.

3. Choose whatever helps you pay bills. It is a no brainer .

Hope this helps you make your choices.

Hey, while I don't believe there is anything wrong with you choosing to practice your religion even in a public setting, however reality is far from this idealism.
You would regularly see lawyers with tika on their forehead and rudraksha and no one would bat an eye about it. However, considering you are a minority in this country of ours your expression would be deemed as overt and as someone who is trying to prove a point.
It's sad but it's a reality, your expression of freedom would be seen as a sign of oppression even if you want to willfully exercise without any pressure. The society is so funny that if you don't strike a balance and wear something immodest (according to them) they will comment about that too.
Therefore, wear what you want to whether it's deemed too modest or too immodest. Just be confident and remember your task is to be a good lawyer not to seek approval of others for anything which isn't related to the legal domain.

Also, you would be surprised to find a lot of sane minds support you and encourage you to exercise your true freedom without throwing shade at you.

In Madras HC, from experience, you will be completely accepted with a hijab. I have not seen anyone wear a full burkha till now. During the Ramzan fasts, adjournments are liberally granted to anyone with an Islamic name. There is also a prayer hall within the Court premises. You will also find practicing Hindus with sacred ash on their foreheads. No one cares or minds. However there is one serious danger: You will be bombarded with requests for Biriyani. In buckets.

Why so many downvotes?
I presume LI as a platform for lawyers especially from prestigious institutions of our country must have a broader mindset than showcased in this thread.
If the constitution validates it with immense reiteration throughout, that you're not bound to face discrimination as a result of your race, caste, religion, gender, etc. then I don't think she said anything that could be "legally" wrong.
Apart from internal hatred some users might be having, I don't find any other reason for such backlash.
Guys don't get me wrong, I'm aware that your legal acumen would be infinitely more than mine but for the person who posted the genuine concern it might seem discouraging with more than double downvotes as compared to upvotes.
You guys could've just stated that "yeah it'll definitely leave a negative remark on the first impression but the entirety of other's perception depends upon your ability to practice law flawlessly."

Freedom of practicing religion is there, so don't worry, wear the hijab , u don't have to ask anyone nor have to enquire about it, u know the law then no one can deny this. If practicing religion is only a matter of home then why various institutions celebrate Holi, Diwali, Christmas, why schools start their day with prayers ,why there are ceremonies like lightening candles, listening to Bhajan, Aarti is there. The thing is we have started asking people so they are uttering whatever shit they have, so simply don't ask , u like ur religion na then do follow , no one can stop you. No one has the authority to put their religion above the other religion, all religions are equal in the eyes of law.

Yeah....no. As a colleague, let me tell you that at least do some research before spitting opinions as established law.

First of all, let us name the two distinctions that you made. Practising one's religion at home is called forum internum, mostly tied with the freedom of thought and conscience. At home, there is an unconditional right to do whatever the hell I want [1]. At the work place (or any public place), it is the external manifestation of my thought and conscience by means of religious symbols (like hijab, teeka, chudha, kumkum, cross, turban etc.) which is called forum externum. This is the core protection of the freedom of religion as well which derives from our constitution. In fact, protection of distinctive religious wearing in public is explicitly protected by international human rights law [1]. International law as an aid in its interpretation to harmonise fundamental rights with human rights is of paramount importance [2].

Art. 18 of the ICCPR on the right to freedom of religion quite literally states, 'Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right shall include freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice, and freedom, either individually or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching.'

One cannot force someone to wear religious symbols and neither can you prohibit wearing them (imagine banning wearing the kumkum or mangal sutra in public places or offices). This is confirmed in various document of the UN Human Rights Council [3]. That a hijab ban in public is discriminatory has been established in various cases at the UN Human Rights treaty bodies - most notably the various cases of the French burkha ban [4].

TL;DR: Get outta here with that uninformed bullshit.

[1] UN Human Rights Committee, General Comment 22, CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.4
[2] ADM Jabalpur v Shivkant Shukla
[3] A/HRC/10/8/Add.2, A/HRC/13/40/Add.2, A/63/161
[4] CCPR/C/123/D/2747/2016 is one example.

Let me remind you of the discussion. You said, 'I will definitely mind a junior wearing hijab/niqab or any other dress which symbolises rigidity and disregard to human rights.' after which someone expressed astonishment that 'Is wearing the hijab not a human right in itself?' to which you replied, 'No it's not.' To me there does not seem to be any ambiguity that you were saying wearing a hijab/niqab is not protected by law or fundamental/human rights.

That said, I actually did go through the Ananda Margi judgment once again upon your request. The contention was that 'Ananda Margis can have no fundamental right to carry weapons in the public, in procession or otherwise, nor have they any right to perform tandava dance with daggers and human skulls' which could be negated if this was deemed to be an essential religious practice, e.g. the fundamental right of Sikhs to carry kirpans. This is unlike the issue of the fundamental right of Sikhs to wear turbans (which is not a weapon), which is similar to the hijab issue.

That the tandava dance was not essential rested a lot on the fact that it was a public procession, disrupting traffic and people with a risk of injury and harm because weapons were used (hence the S. 144 order and contentions by the Commissioner of Police). The only injury that a hijab can have here is to your emotions. The hijab is not a performance like the tandava dance. This is why neither do you have a right to block the road to read namaaz - which is indeed a performance.

If you ban the hijab/niqab - what next? Will you ban the face coverings of Hindu women in temples? Will you ban turbans? Will you ban the teeka? How do you determine where to stop? Or are you majoritarian in the sense that you want to ban only those that are minority customs? In that case, the entire concept of the protection of religious and minority rights is a joke.