微微一笑很倾城

中泰警方联合侦破一起跨国信用卡盗刷案_我的网站

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。    　　讯 据公安部消息，近日，公安部与泰国皇家警察总署密切协作，同步对一起专门针对中国公民的重大跨国信用卡盗刷案开展收网行动，摧毁多个犯罪窝点，分别抓获4名中国籍犯罪嫌疑人和5名泰国籍犯罪嫌疑人，取得重大战果。　　2025年，公安部经侦局指导协调上海公安经侦部门研判发现一个针对我国公民实施信用卡盗刷的跨国犯罪团伙，并及时将案件情况和协查请求通报泰国警方，开展国际执法合作。

B | 经查，2024年，犯罪嫌疑人计某与肖某共谋，由计某在泰国开设果干店为幌子，以使用银联卡消费打折为诱饵，非法获取受害人信用卡信息。随后，由肖某制作伪卡，招募刷手实施盗刷和销赃牟利。截至目前，已查明涉案金额达500余万元人民币。今年7月初，公安部派工作组赴泰国，与泰警方开展联合办案，精准研判该犯罪团伙组织架构、核心骨干、作案窝点，全面掌握其作案模式和资金流向。近日，两国警方同步开展收网，实现案件全环节部署、全要素搜证、全链条打击。　　公安部有关负责人表示，此次收网系中泰两国警方近年来在打击经济犯罪领域首次同步开展的联合执法行动，有效震慑了跨国经济犯罪活动。下步，双方将持续巩固本次联合行动成果，探索建立打击跨境经济犯罪常态化协作机制，不断深化线索共享、经验互通、联合研判、追逃追赃等执法合作。版权申明：凡注有“”或电头为“”的稿件，均为独家版权所有，未经许可不得转载或镜像；授权转载必须注明来源为“”，并保留“”的电头。

C |     。

Current article:http://druppbf.zhouangnaoguangsundianzhenmou.cfd/news/20260826_391268.html

Published on:11:09:12