Kumar: The circular says CDC is to be constituted for the purpose to utilise the grants, as well as maintain education standards. This CDC is not for students welfare. It is only for academic standards.
Kumar mentions that College Development Committees are constituted by a circular in 2014. Not even an Order.
"This is a circular, not an order, issued by the under secretary, not even an order in the name of the Govt" - he says.
Kumar: Section 143 of the Act deals with delegation to authorities under the Act. I have already shown College Development Committee is not an authority, much less a subordinate authority. So delegation cannot be made to it.
Kumar: In other words, the govt has delegated the power to prescribe uniforms to the College Development Committees. May I request the court to take the Education Act. Legislature has expressly authorized the authorities coming under the Act.
Kumar submits that as per the GO, colleges coming under the jurisdiction of PU board, students shall wear the uniform as per CDC decision.
Kumar reads the GO and says "there is a direct indictment against those coming in hijab".
Kumar : I am not expending the proposition I have made. I am only saying there is no prohibition against Hijab.
The question that comes then is under what authority or rules I have been kept out of the class.
Justice Dixit : There is no prohibition to carry kirpan if it is not prescribed. However, the power to prescribe under rule 9 is there. That needs to be independently argued.
Justice Dixit: That may not be a correct question. If that view is taken, somebody may say there is no license required to carry arms in the classroom as there is no prohibition. I am logically analysing what your proposition can take us to.
Kumar : Neither the provisions under the act nor rules prescribe any uniform. Neither under act nor rules there is prohibition on wearing HIjab.