The petitioner had claimed that a committee of stakeholders should be constituted to apply its mind to the issue.
At this, the court had said: “Your mind might not be the government’s mind. Therefore when the government has applied its mind and has come with a policy, we ought not to interfere unless it is so arbitrary.”
The court had also refused to entertain submissions by certain parties as their applications were not on record.
The plaintiff had said that he was not questioning the rights of Sikhs but only wanted the stakeholders to examine the issue.
He had said: “I admit that Article 25 allows the carriage of a kirpan. But when you are flying, the regulator must apply its mind. I want a constitution of a committee of stakeholders to examine the issue. If the committee feels that the notification is good, so be it. Not a problem.”