Judgment No. CCZ 7/16 14 Const. Application No. CCZ 17/15 being treated equally and in the same manner as other pupils. Indeed, it is not inconceivable that even pupils of the Anglican faith might object to mandatory chapel attendance for reasons unconnected with their faith. In construing s 56 as a whole, it is necessary to emphasise that discrimination is not defined by reference to the affected individual or group standing alone. Rather, it is defined by reference to the treatment that individual or group is subjected to as compared with the treatment accorded to other persons or groups. Where there is no such comparable differentiation, there can be no discrimination proscribed by the Constitution. In the premises, I am satisfied that the applicants have failed to demonstrate any plausible basis for invoking the right not to be treated in a discriminatory manner in impugning the School’s policy of compulsory chapel attendance by all pupils. Freedom of Conscience and Religion For the purpose of addressing the merits of this aspect of the matter, it is necessary to consider three separate but interrelated issues, to wit: • the nature and scope of the applicant’s freedom of religion as guaranteed by s 60 of the Constitution • whether and the extent to which that freedom has been infringed by the School