CJ: On what proposition you want to cite this judgement?
Mucchala : Manifest arbitrariness.
CJ : Alright.
Mucchala : The GO suffers from manifest arbitrariness. I will refer to three paras from Shayara Bano (Triple Talaq case) and demonstrate how this GO preventing girls from wearing headscarves is manifestly arbitrary.
Mucchala : I endorse what my learned friends argued. Mr Hedge, Mr Kamat and Professor Ravivarma Kumar. I seek indulgence to elaborate on two-three points, which they have not touched upon.
Sr Adv Yusuf Muchhala begins submissions.
Muchhala : I speak from Bombay, there is some problem, getting too much echo.
CJ : We are hearing you. You are audible.
Kumar : Judicial note is to be taken that Muslim girls are least represented in classrooms. If they are shut out on this pretext it will be very draconian.
Kumar concludes his submissions.
Kumar: My submission is that if people wearing turban can be in the Army, why not a person sporting a religious symbol be allowed to attend classes.
'Heterogeneity in classroom should be maintained. This is the motto of RTE Act' - this was stated by Govt of India before SC in the Society of Unaided Schools case- Kumar submits.
Kumar refers to "Rosamma A.V vs The University Of Calicut". These judgement state that University with diversity should be the motto and heterogeneity should be maintained.
Kumar refers to NALSA judgment (on transgender rights) and Navtej Singh Johar judgment (which struck down 377 IPC).
Kumar : Third submission is that the goal of education is to promote plurality, not to promote uniformity or homogeneity, but heterogeneity. Classroom should be a place for recognition and reflection of diversity in society.