一 | 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。 AI摘要
第18批援博茨瓦纳医疗队践行“授人以渔”，通过精准救治与“边救治、边带教”模式，培训当地医生掌握骨髓穿刺等核心技术，致力为博茨瓦纳打造一支“带不走的医疗队”。
东南网8月19日报道（本网记者 冯川叶）今年6月26日，第18批援博茨瓦纳医疗队启程，跨越万里奔赴非洲。
二 | 一个多月来，他们以“边救治、边带教”的模式在当地扎根，用每一次精准诊断、每一台规范手术、每一场床旁教学，践行着“授人以渔”的承诺。8月19日，他们迎来在异国他乡的首个中国医师节。他们用过硬医术和无私带教，致力为博茨瓦纳打造一支“带不走的医疗队”。 陈显凌医生带着三位徒弟开展骨髓穿刺及活检培训。
三 | （医疗队供图） “3秒，不疼了！” 抵达当地仅一周，中国援博茨瓦纳医疗队弗朗西斯敦分队的队员们还正处于适应环境的休整期。
四 | 一次突如其来的求助，让这支队伍在异国他乡迎来了“首秀”。
五 | 7月5日晚，一名在博茨瓦纳弗朗西斯敦的华人青年在篮球运动中意外受伤，突发肩关节剧痛，患肢抬举困难且活动完全受限。当地华人商会紧急联系了医疗队寻求专业救助。接到求助后，医疗队迅速联动队内骨科专业力量，紧急启动救治预案。接诊的是来自福建医科大学附属第一医院骨科的曾锦源副主任医师。
六 | 面对焦急的伤者，曾医师迅速进行了细致的体格检查，精准诊断为急性肩关节脱位，评估符合无创即时手法复位的救治条件。
七 | 为最大限度减轻伤者痛苦、规避远期损伤风险，曾医师当即决定实施手法复位。凭借扎实的正骨功底与丰富的临床经验，他精准发力、巧妙对位，仅耗时3秒便成功完成复位。随着关节归位的轻响，伤者的剧烈疼痛即刻缓解，肩关节活动功能迅速恢复正常。
八 | 随后，他向伤者细致叮嘱了后续关节制动与休养护理的细则，详细讲解了运动损伤的防护要点及禁忌事项，帮助其规避二次受伤风险，并提供了全流程的康复指导。复位成功后，这位华人青年激动地竖起大拇指连连称赞。这短短3秒钟的“中国速度”，不仅瞬间解除了患者的痛苦，更充分展现了中国医者的专业与担当。
九 | 授人以渔 让技术扎根非洲大地 “‘授人以鱼不如授人以渔’，我们把带教作为援助的一项重点工作，为当地打造一支带不走的医疗队。”这是第18批援博茨瓦纳中国医疗队队长、福建中医药大学附属康复医院纪委书记侯德梁在出征时接受记者采访时说的一句话。一个多月以来，医疗队通过一次次“手把手”教学，用实际行动践行承诺。
十 | 骨髓穿刺及活检是血液科医师必备的核心临床操作。抵达博茨瓦纳玛丽娜公主医院不到两周，来自医疗队血液科的陈显凌主任医师、医学博士迅速投身临床救治与本土人才带教工作。
十一 | 本次参加培训的三名当地医学生，此前均无独立实操经验。从患者体位摆放、局部麻醉要点把控，到骨穿进针角度、进针力度调整，再到骨髓活检标本获取、标准骨髓涂片制备，陈显凌将整套操作流程逐一拆解。现场示范每一个关键动作，细致讲解技术要点、风险防范要点以及无菌操作规范，毫无保留分享临床经验。实操过程中实时纠正手法细节，引导学员建立严谨规范的临床思维。 在陈显凌的全程监护与带教指导下，三名当地医学生依次独立完成骨髓穿刺+活检全套操作，全部实现一次穿刺成功。操作顺利完成的那一刻，病房现场响起阵阵掌声。
十二 | 首次独立完成这项高难度操作，当地学员倍感振奋，实操的成功大大提振了他们开展血液病诊疗工作的信心。
十三 | 不久前，当地一台宫颈锥切手术遇到棘手状况：术中视野暴露不佳、病灶边界分辨不清，当地医师操作受阻，手术难以继续推进。妇科易靖艺医生立刻上台接手。凭借娴熟的手术技巧，他精准划定切除范围，规范完成病灶切除与创面止血。更为关键的是，易靖艺在操作过程中结合实操，同步向当地医护讲解解剖辨识要点、手术角度把控方法以及术中难点处理经验——在解决临床急症的同时开展即时带教。这种“边做边教”的方式获得当地医生高度认可，他们表示：“中国医生不仅帮我们完成了手术，更教会了我们如何处理类似复杂情况。” 针对博茨瓦纳眼科医疗资源有限、药物依赖度高的现状，医疗队眼科黄礼彬医生大力推广选择性激光小梁成形术及眼底视网膜激光光凝治疗。
十四 | 这两项微创激光技术既能有效控制眼压、阻止眼底病变进展，大幅降低致盲风险，又能减少药物依赖，切实减轻患者就医经济负担。在开展治疗的同时，黄礼彬手把手带教当地医生，悉心传授激光技术的适应症筛选、参数调试与术后随访规范，将一套适配当地诊疗现状的防盲技术完整地留在了博茨瓦纳。这一举措不仅为当地眼科患者带来了新的治疗希望，也为本土医生提供了可持续开展的技术工具。
Current article:http://ww9l.shuosongzoutunchutao.cfd/d6hf1vj/20260826/1495271.html
Published on:22:16:05
