All Courses
Explore Courses UPSC Exam UPSC Test Series Free Notes EduRev Infinity Get the App Login Join for Free
Sign in Open App
UPSC Exam  >  UPSC Questions  >  Is the restriction on what to wear justified ... Start Learning for Free
SaveJoin the Discussion on the App
Is the restriction on what to wear justified in all cases or only in some?? when does it constitute a constraint on Freedom?
Clear all your UPSC doubts with EduRev
Most Upvoted Answer
Is the restriction on what to wear justified in all cases or only in s...
**Is the restriction on what to wear justified in all cases or only in some? When does it constitute a constraint on Freedom?**

Introduction:

The issue of restrictions on what individuals can wear is a complex and contentious one. While it is important to maintain social norms and cultural values, it is equally important to respect individual freedom and expression. Restrictions on clothing choices can be justified in some cases, such as maintaining public decency, safety, or security. However, in certain instances, such restrictions can go beyond reasonable limits and impinge on personal freedom.

Body:

**Justified Restrictions:**

1. **Maintaining Public Decency:** Restrictions on clothing are often imposed to ensure public decency and uphold cultural and moral values. For example, in conservative societies, certain types of clothing, such as revealing outfits, may be seen as indecent and inappropriate. In such cases, restrictions can be justified to maintain social harmony and cultural integrity.

2. **Safety and Security:** Restrictions on clothing may be necessary for safety and security reasons. For instance, in high-risk areas or certain professions, specific attire may be mandated to protect individuals from hazards or accidents. In these cases, the restrictions are justified as they prioritize the well-being and physical safety of individuals.

3. **Identification and Uniformity:** In certain settings, such as schools, workplaces, or military organizations, dress codes or uniforms may be enforced to promote a sense of identity, discipline, and cohesion. Such restrictions are justified as they serve practical purposes and foster a sense of belonging and professionalism.

**Constraints on Freedom:**

1. **Infringement on Personal Expression:** Excessive restrictions on clothing can curtail individual freedom and self-expression. Clothing is often used as a form of non-verbal communication and a means of expressing one's identity, beliefs, and values. When restrictions limit an individual's ability to dress according to their preferences or cultural background, it hampers their freedom to express themselves.

2. **Violation of Human Rights:** In some cases, restrictions on clothing can amount to a violation of human rights, particularly when they are based on gender, religion, or ethnicity. For example, laws that prohibit women from wearing certain religious attire or force individuals to conform to a specific dress code can be seen as discriminatory and an infringement on the right to freedom of religion or expression.

3. **Unreasonable Social Norms:** Society's norms and expectations regarding clothing can sometimes be unreasonable and arbitrary. Imposing restrictions based on these norms can be unjust as they stifle individual creativity and diversity. It is important to strike a balance between upholding societal values and allowing individuals to express themselves freely.

Conclusion:

While restrictions on what to wear can be justified in certain cases, it is crucial to consider the impact on individual freedom and expression. Society should strive to strike a balance between upholding cultural values and respecting personal autonomy. Laws and regulations should be fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory, ensuring that individuals have the freedom to dress according to their preferences while also maintaining public decency, safety, and security.
Explore Courses for UPSC exam

Similar UPSC Doubts

Passage 1We live in a legal environment where the rule of sub-judice is regarded as an anachronism, emanating from a time when all trials were decided by jurors susceptible to influence by what was published in the press. By and large, the law of sub judice, which regulates the dissemination of matter under the consideration of the court, is a dead letter. In such a context, the Supreme Courts judgment last year, justifying a ban on the publication of court proceedings in certain cases is likely to have a chilling effect on the freedom of the press and the very idea of an open trial. Mercifully, the Court refused to lay down broad guidelines for reporting ongoing cases. But though its order books like a restatement of the Mirajkar case in which a nine member bench ruled that the right to open justice is not absolute, the Court has likely upset the difficult Constitutional balance between freedom of expression and the administration ofjustice that the landmark 1966 judgment established. Indeed, by emphasizing the right of an aggrieved person to seek postponement of media coverage of an ongoing case by approaching the appropriate writ court, there is a danger that gag orders may become commonplace. At a minimum, the door has been opened to hundreds and thousands of additional writs- a burden our legal system is unprepared to handle- filed by accused persons with meansThe fivejudge bench cited precedents in many jurisdictions to maintain There is power in the courts to postpone the reporting ofjudicial proceedings in the administration ofjustice. Even in the USA, where the First Amendment trumps any restriction placed on rights to free speech, the courts have evolved neutralizing devices to prevent the corruption of the administration ofjustice. But set aside the judicial reasoning and consider its possible impact. Powerful defendants in high profile cases will try their best to get postponement orders despite the very strict criteria laid down by the Supreme Court. Moreover, gag orders issued in contravention of the doctrines of necessity and proportionality may take a long time to vacate, thus robbing the public of its right to know. The public scrutiny of courts is critical in ensuring that the judges do justice; a lack of awareness of what goes on in a courtroom can only undermine the public confidence in the judicial system. The same Mirajkarjudgment also said restraint on publication and closed door units could apply only in exceptional cases.Q.It can be inferred that the Mirajkar case is significant because

Directions forthe following 8 (eight) items:Read the following two passages and answer the items that follow each passage. Your answers to these items should be based on these passages only. Passage 1We live in a legal environment where the rule of sub-judice is regarded as an anachronism, emanating from a time when all trials were decided by jurors susceptible to influence by what was published in the press. By and large, the law of sub judice, which regulates the dissemination of matter under the consideration of the court, is a dead letter. In such a context, the Supreme Courts judgment last year, justifying a ban on the publication of court proceedings in certain cases is likely to have a chilling effect on the freedom of the press and the very idea of an open trial. Mercifully, the Court refused to lay down broad guidelines for reporting ongoing cases. But though its order books like a restatement of the Mirajkar case in which a nine member bench ruled that the right to open justice is not absolute, the Court has likely upset the difficult Constitutional balance between freedom of expression and the administration ofjustice that the landmark 1966 judgment established. Indeed, by emphasizing the right of an aggrieved person to seek postponement of media coverage of an ongoing case by approaching the appropriate writ court, there is a danger that gag orders may become commonplace. At a minimum, the door has been opened to hundreds and thousands of additional writs- a burden our legal system is unprepared to handle- filed by accused persons with meansThe fivejudge bench cited precedents in many jurisdictions to maintain There is power in the courts to postpone the reporting ofjudicial proceedings in the administration ofjustice. Even in the USA, where the First Amendment trumps any restriction placed on rights to free speech, the courts have evolved neutralizing devices to prevent the corruption of the administration ofjustice. But set aside the judicial reasoning and consider its possible impact. Powerful defendants in high profile cases will try their best to get postponement orders despite the very strict criteria laid down by the Supreme Court. Moreover, gag orders issued in contravention of the doctrines of necessity and proportionality may take a long time to vacate, thus robbing the public of its right to know. The public scrutiny of courts is critical in ensuring that the judges do justice; a lack of awareness of what goes on in a courtroom can only undermine the public confidence in the judicial system. The same Mirajkarjudgment also said restraint on publication and closed door units could apply only in exceptional cases.Q.Consider the following statements:1. Gag orders on the press were justifies in the past due to the possibility ofjurors being influenced by the news2. The monetary ban on publication of court proceedings has upheld the freedom of expression With reference to the above passage, which ofthe following assumptions is/are valid?

Top Courses for UPSCView all

Top Courses for UPSC

Is the restriction on what to wear justified in all cases or only in some?? when does it constitute a constraint on Freedom?
Question Description
Is the restriction on what to wear justified in all cases or only in some?? when does it constitute a constraint on Freedom? for UPSC 2024 is part of UPSC preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the UPSC exam syllabus. Information about Is the restriction on what to wear justified in all cases or only in some?? when does it constitute a constraint on Freedom? covers all topics & solutions for UPSC 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Is the restriction on what to wear justified in all cases or only in some?? when does it constitute a constraint on Freedom?.
Solutions for Is the restriction on what to wear justified in all cases or only in some?? when does it constitute a constraint on Freedom? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for UPSC. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for UPSC Exam by signing up for free.
Here you can find the meaning of Is the restriction on what to wear justified in all cases or only in some?? when does it constitute a constraint on Freedom? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Is the restriction on what to wear justified in all cases or only in some?? when does it constitute a constraint on Freedom?, a detailed solution for Is the restriction on what to wear justified in all cases or only in some?? when does it constitute a constraint on Freedom? has been provided alongside types of Is the restriction on what to wear justified in all cases or only in some?? when does it constitute a constraint on Freedom? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Is the restriction on what to wear justified in all cases or only in some?? when does it constitute a constraint on Freedom? tests, examples and also practice UPSC tests.
Explore Courses for UPSC exam

Top Courses for UPSC

Explore Courses

Suggested Free Tests

Signup for Free!
Signup to see your scores go up within 7 days! Learn & Practice with 1000+ FREE Notes, Videos & Tests.
10M+ students study on EduRev
Get App
© EduRev
Education Revolution
Signup to see your scores go up within 7 days!
Access 1000+ FREE Docs, Videos and Tests
Takes less than 10 seconds to signup