傲慢与偏见

一 |     近日，杭州市生态环境局成功查办一起重大非法经营危险废物（以下简称“危废”）案，不仅对涉案企业开出重磅罚单、将责任人移送公安机关，更跨省函告源头属地监管部门，实现真正意义上的“全链条打击”。今年1月15日，杭州市生态环境保护行政执法队执法人员对杭州某再生资源有限公司（危废经营单位）开展例行检查，在企业2楼生产车间，44个白色吨包袋引起了执法人员的警觉，袋内装满了粉状和块状混杂的银灰色固体废物。    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。“这批固废从哪来？是不是危废？”面对询问，公司法定代表人陈某眼神闪躲，谎称“不清楚”。执法人员敏锐地察觉到异常，立即调取财务电脑里的过磅单台账。数据显示，2025年10月23日，该公司购入两车合计50多吨的“铝渣”。对照《国家危险废物名录》，执法人员凭借丰富办案经验初步判断：这批所谓的“铝渣”，极有可能是危废——铝灰渣。市生态环境局迅速抽调骨干，组建5人专案组全力攻坚。

二 | 调查刚启动就遇上“软钉子”：公司法定代表人陈某百般狡辩，企业监控硬盘也仅留存了近1个月的视频，无法回溯卸货当日画面。“既然人不开口，就让数据说话！”专案组迅速调整思路，依托刚成立的杭州市涉固体废物违法犯罪联合打击治理专项行动工作专班寻找突破口。该专班汇聚环保、公安、交通等6部门力量，专门严打涉固废领域的违法犯罪行为。专案组主动对接公安部门，对案发当日企业周边的大货车运行轨迹进行海量数据研判。

三 | 经逐一筛查，两辆山东牌照大货车进入视线——卸货当天它们曾在该企业长时间停留。

四 | 随后，执法人员函商交通部门，调取这两辆货车的北斗定位信息，成功锁定固废起运点与运输车辆。

五 | 紧接着，4名执法人员奔赴湖南邵阳，可在当地某铝业公司的监控中，并未发现涉案货车的进出记录。专案组并未气馁，立即召开案情分析会，判断北斗定位可能存在经纬度偏差。

六 | 在当地环保部门协助下，执法人员对周边涉铝企业展开地毯式排查。在强大的执法震慑下，藏身于该铝业公司对面的新邵县某钢铁回收公司内的中间人郭某，主动投案，交代了一条隐秘的利益链：杭州的陈某通过网络联系郭某买“铝渣”，郭某又向河南郑州的赵某拿货。

七 | 为掩人耳目，陈某提出“自己找车承运”，通过货运平台将50多吨固废从河南运至湖南中转，再用两辆大货车运回杭州。经专案组审慎研判，依法委托具有法定资质的第三方检测机构对涉案固废进行危险特性鉴别。历时1个月采样、实验、论证，《鉴别报告》出具——这批披着“铝渣”外衣的固废中，有8种剧毒物质含量严重超标，另有锰、钡等7种有毒物质超标。该批固废被依法判定为具有“毒性”的危废。最终，市生态环境局依法对该公司作出罚款65万元的行政处罚，并将法定代表人陈某移送公安机关。杭州环保部门并未“就案办案”。针对湖南邵阳中间人郭某、河南郑州货源方赵某未经审批擅自转移危废的违法行为，杭州市生态环境局将完整证据材料分别函告邵阳市生态环境局和郑州市生态环境局，推动属地立案查处，真正实现“打源头、端窝点、摧网络”的全链条打击。