Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Ca 5166 5190 2013
Ca 5166 5190 2013
Ca 5166 5190 2013
Reportable
WITH
Versus
AND
Page 1
2
Versus
JUDGMENT
A. K. PATNAIK, J.
Page 2
3
hereinbelow:-
Page 3
4
Page 4
5
Page 5
6
child.
Page 6
7
held:
Page 7
8
Page 8
9
Page 9
10
Nos.5191-5199 of 2013.
Page 10
11
No.32858 of 2013.
Page 11
12
Page 12
13
Constitution Bench.
Page 13
14
Page 14
15
Page 15
16
Page 16
17
Page 17
18
Page 18
19
community.
Page 19
20
Page 20
21
Page 21
22
Page 22
23
Page 23
24
Page 24
25
Page 25
26
Page 26
27
Page 27
28
the Constitution.
classes I to IV.
Page 28
29
of the Constitution.
Page 29
30
Page 30
31
Page 31
32
27):
Page 32
33
Page 33
34
Page 34
35
tongue.
Page 35
36
no.(i).
Page 36
37
at primary stage ?
The High Court has held that the parent or a child has a
right—
Page 37
38
that the State will not impose controls on the citizen in the
Page 38
39
Page 39
40
Page 40
41
India [(1972)2 SCC 788], this Court also held that the
Page 41
42
Page 42
43
school.
Page 43
44
(supra):
Page 44
45
for the reason that the State will have no power to impose
the Constitution.
Page 45
46
Page 46
47
the Constitution.
Page 47
48
quoted hereinbelow:
Page 48
49
Page 49
50
Page 50
51
Page 51
52
judgment held:
Page 52
53
Page 53
54
Page 54
55
(supra), held:
Page 55
56
executive order.
Page 56
57
Page 57
58
Bench, however, has not held that this power of the State
Page 58
59
Constitution.
Page 59
60
quoted hereinbelow:
Page 60
61
Page 61
62
schools?”
Page 62
63
judgment, the two Judges of this Court have also held that
Page 63
64
Page 64
65
Page 65
66
.....……………..……………………CJI.
(R.M. Lodha)
.....……………..……………………….J.
(A. K. Patnaik)
.....……………..……………………….J.
(Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya)
Page 66
67
.....……………..……………………….J.
(Dipak Misra)
...…....………….……………………..J.
(Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla)
New Delhi,
May 06, 2014.
Page 67