首页 > 新闻 > 正文

回家的诱惑

视野是哈勃的 100 倍：美国罗曼太空望远镜目标 8 月 30 日发射_我的网站

一诺倾情

A | 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。 8 月 25 日消息，全球首富马斯克旗下航天公司 SpaceX 今天（8 月 25 日）在 X 平台发布推文，称美国宇航局的南希 · 格雷斯 · 罗曼太空望远镜上周已安装部署到猎鹰重型运载火箭的整流罩内。官方表示目标将于美国东部时间 2026 年 8 月 30 日星期日上午 7:26（北京时间 8 月 30 日 19:26）从佛罗里达州 39A 发射台发射升空。附上相关截图如下：南希 · 格雷斯 · 罗曼太空望远镜是美国宇航局的天基红外巡天望远镜，主要通过宽视场巡天，探索暗能量、系外行星及红外天体物理学等前沿课题，望远镜已于 2025 年 12 月完成主体建造，2026 年 4 月完成全部测试并宣布建造完工。南希 · 格雷斯 · 罗曼太空望远镜将会搭乘 SpaceX 的猎鹰重型火箭，部署在距地球 150 万公里处的轨道上。此次任务耗资约 30 亿美元，目标彻底革新天文学家探索宇宙的方式。罗曼望远镜最突出的特点是其视场角至少是哈勃太空望远镜的 100 倍，而其 2.4 米主镜与哈勃口径相同，图像分辨率也保持一致。