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?
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.
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.
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.