{"id":132091,"date":"2004-03-16T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2004-03-15T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-tamil-nadu-and-anr-vs-s-v-bratheep-minor-and-ors-on-16-march-2004"},"modified":"2016-04-21T01:59:18","modified_gmt":"2016-04-20T20:29:18","slug":"state-of-tamil-nadu-and-anr-vs-s-v-bratheep-minor-and-ors-on-16-march-2004","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-tamil-nadu-and-anr-vs-s-v-bratheep-minor-and-ors-on-16-march-2004","title":{"rendered":"State Of Tamil Nadu And Anr vs S.V. Bratheep (Minor) And Ors on 16 March, 2004"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
State Of Tamil Nadu And Anr vs S.V. Bratheep (Minor) And Ors on 16 March, 2004<\/div>\n
Bench: S. Rajendra Babu, Dr. Ar. Lakshmanan, G.P. Mathur<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  1626-1628 of 2004\n\nPETITIONER:\nSTATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ANR.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nS.V. BRATHEEP (MINOR) AND ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 16\/03\/2004\n\nBENCH:\nS. RAJENDRA BABU & DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN & G.P. MATHUR\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
2004(2) SCR 1218<\/p>\n
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by<\/p>\n
RAJENDRA BABU, J. Civil Appeals Nos. 1626-1628 of 2004 (@ S.L.P. (C) Nos.
\n20756-20758\/2003 and Civil Appeals Nos. 1629-1631\/2004 (@ S.L.P. Nos.
\n20901-20903\/2003)<\/p>\n
Leave granted in the special leave petitions.\n<\/p>\n
In these matters, writ petitions were filed in the High Court of Madras
\nseeking for a writ or order or direction to quash G.O.Ms. Dated 29.6.2002
\nand 13.2.2003 issued by the Higher Education Department in so far as the
\nrespondents were concerned and to direct the appellants and others to
\nconsider their admission to engineering colleges without reference to the
\nminimum eligible marks prescribed by the appellants.\n<\/p>\n
The learned Single Judge of the High Court, who examined the matter, held
\nthat the prescription of qualifications or prescription of the minimum
\neligible marks for SC\/ST as mere pass, most backward at 50% average marks
\nin the related subjects, backward at 55% average marks in the related
\nsubjects and other classes at 60% average marks in the related subjects,
\nwould not be in conflict with the Regulations of AH India Council for
\nTechnical Education [AICTE] and, therefore, dismissed the writ petitions.
\nOn appeal, a Division Bench of the High Court held that there is a glaring
\ndifference in the norms fixed by AICTE and the norms fixed by the State
\nGovernment, and struck down the same and issued the following directions:\n<\/p>\n
“1. The admission of those students who had appeared for the TNPCEE’ 03 but
\nhad not secured the prescribed minimum aggregate marks in their Higher
\nSecondary examinations would be regularised.\n<\/p>\n
2.    No action need be taken against those Engineering colleges for having
\nbreached the norms of the State Government and no proceedings of
\ndissatisfaction need be started against them on that count alone. The State
\nGovernment shall, within three weeks from today, with notices to all the
\nEngineering colleges in the State start the process of   locating the
\nstudents by giving such students an opportunity to vie for the seats in the
\nEngineering colleges. If any of such students have already been admitted,
\nas we have stated earlier, their admissions shall be regularised. However,
\nwe make it clear that all the students who are going to be benefited by
\nthis judgment must have appeared for the Tamil Nadu Professional Courses
\nEntrance Examinations’03 held by the State Government.\n<\/p>\n
3.    Since the learned counsel appearing for the Anna University pointed
\nout that admissions in this late juncture are likely to affect the
\nUniversity attendance regulations, we also direct that the shortage in the
\nattendance of such students shall be compensated by holding special classes
\non Saturdays, Sundays and other holidays. Learned counsel appearing on
\nbehalf of the Engineering institutions have undertaken that teaching staff
\nwho are engaged for holding such special classes shall be paid extra and
\nthat no amount shall be collected by the institutions form the students.\n<\/p>\n
4. The writ petitions filed by the individual students shall stand allowed
\nonly if such students have taken part in the common entrance test Tamil
\nNadu Professional Courses Entrance Examinations’03.\n<\/p>\n
5.  We make it clear that all these directions apply only for the academic
\nyear 2003-04.”\n<\/p>\n
Though this Court while entertaining these matters directed that status quo
\nshould be maintained as on the date of the judgment in relation to
\nadmission of students in engineering colleges, it is stated that several
\nstudents in question had been admitted who fulfilled the terms stated by
\nthe Division Bench of the High Court and they have been allowed to take the
\nexaminations also. In these circumstances, the appellant does not contest
\ntheir admissions and it is only for purposes of examination of the correct
\nposition in law that the State and the University are pursuing these
\nmatters. Therefore, that aspect of the matter need not detain us any
\nlonger. We think, submission made on behalf of the parties is reasonable
\nand the admissions made so long as they conform to the norms issued by the
\nHigh Court should not be disturbed.\n<\/p>\n
We shall now examine only the question posed before us as to whether the
\nnorms prescribed by the State Government are contradictory to the norms
\nfixed by AICTE or are only in the nature of higher qualifications above the
\nminimum prescribed by AICTE for admission to the Engineering Colleges.
\nAICTE prescribed in their Guidelines for the relevant period as follows:\n<\/p>\n
“1.1. Qualification for admission of General Category Students:\n<\/p>\n
The minimum qualification for admission to degree programmes in Engineering
\nshould be a pass in the 10+2 (Senior Secondary) Examination with a minimum
\naggregate of 60 percent marks in Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics
\nobtained in a single sitting. The duration of degree programme in
\nEngineering will be 4 years after 12th standard. This will apply to cases
\nwhere admissions are based on the marks in the qualifying examination and
\nnot on the basis of entrance tests………………”\n<\/p>\n
“1.3. Entrance Tests<\/p>\n
All States\/Union territories (Uts) should conduct entrance tests in the
\nsubjects of Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics at 12+level. The entrance
\ntest should be common to all Engineering degree institutions in the
\nState\/Uts. The minimum marks from eligibility for the entrance test need
\nnot be prescribed in the case of degree courses and all students who have
\npassed the qualifying examination may be permitted to appear in the
\nentrance test. Only the merit ranking in the entrance test should be the
\nbasis for admission to engineering degree programmes. Such tests should be
\nconducted by appropriate agencies set up for the purpose.”\n<\/p>\n
While the Government provided for the basic qualification for eligibility
\nis as adverted to by us earlier. The High Court found that there are two
\nstreams of admission of students as prescribed by AICTE, namely,<\/p>\n
(i)    Those who were admitted on the basis of the marks secured in the
\nqualifying examinations only; and<\/p>\n
(ii)   Those who are admitted on the basis of the marks secured in the
\nCommon Entrance Test held by the State or the Union Territories.\n<\/p>\n
The High Court is of the view that AICTE has contemplated two categories of
\nstudents seeking for admission as noted by us above and there is no other
\ncategory of students contemplated by the AICTE who are aspiring to apply
\nfor engineering seat. Therefore, the norms fixed by the State is in a stark
\ncontradiction of the norms fixed by the AICTE. To arrive at this
\nconclusion, the High Court very strongly relied upon the decision of this
\nCourt in State of T.N. and Anr. v. Adhiyaman Educational & Research
\nInstitute and Ors.,<\/a> [1995] 4 SCC 104.\n<\/p>\n
As regards the scope of the Entries in the Constitution arising under Entry
\n66 of List I and Entry 25 of List III of the Seventh Schedule to the
\nConstitution was examined in great detail by a constitution Bench of this
\nCourt in Dr. Preeti Srivastava and Anr. v. State of M.P. and Ors., [1999] 7
\nSCC 120. After adverting to these two entries in the Seventh Schedule, this
\nCourt stated as follows:\n<\/p>\n
“Both the Union as well as the States have the power to legislate on
\neducation including medical education, subject, inter alia, to Entry 66 of
\nList I which deals with laying down standards in institutions for higher
\neducation or research and scientific and technical institutions as also
\ncoordination of such standards. A State has, therefore, the right to
\ncontrol education including medical education so long as the field is not
\noccupied by any Union legislation. Secondly, the State cannot, while
\ncontrolling education in the State, impinge on standards in institutions
\nfor higher education. Because this is exclusively within the purview of the
\nUnion Government. Therefore, while prescribing the criteria for admission
\nto the institutions for higher education including higher medical
\neducation, the State cannot adversely affect the standards laid down by the
\nUnion of India under Entry 66 of List I. Secondly, while considering the
\ncases on the subject it is also necessary to remember that from 1977,
\neducation, including, inter alia, medical and university education, is now
\nin the Concurrent List so that the Union can legislate on admission
\ncriteria also. If it does so, the State will not be able to legislate in
\nthis field, except as provided in Article 254. It would not be correct to
\nsay that the norms for admission have no connection with the standard of
\neducation, or that the rules for admission are covered only by Entry 25 of
\nList III. Norms of admission can have a direct impact on the standards of
\neducation. Of course, there can be rules for admission which are consistent
\nwith or do not affect adversely the standards of education prescribed by
\nthe Union in exercise of powers under Entry 66 of List I. For example, a
\nState may, for admission to the postgraduate medical courses, lay down
\nqualifications in addition to those prescribed under Entry 66 of List I.
\nThis would be consistent with promoting higher standards for admission to
\nthe higher educational courses. But any lowering of the norms laid down can
\nand does have an adverse effect on the standards of education in the
\ninstitutes of higher education………”[p-154]<\/p>\n
Entry 25 of List III and Entry 66 of List I have td be read together and it
\ncannot be read in such a manner as to from an exclusivity in the matter of
\nadmission but if certain prescription of standards have been made pursuant
\nto Entry 66 of List I, then those standards will prevail over the standards
\nfixed by the State in exercise of powers under Entry 25 of List III insofar
\nas they adversely affect the standards-laid down by the Union of India or
\nany other authority functioning under it. Therefore, what is to be seen in
\nthe present case is whether the prescription of the standards made by the
\nState Government is in any way adverse to, or lower than, the standards
\nfixed by the AICTE. It is no doubt true that the AICTE prescribed two modes
\nof admission – One is merely dependent on the qualifying examination and
\nthe other dependent upon the marks obtained at the Common Entrance Test.
\nThe appellant in the present case prescribed the qualification of having
\nsecured certain percentage of marks in the related subjects which is higher
\nthan the minimum in the qualifying examination in order to be eligible for
\nadmission. If higher minimum is prescribed by the State Government than
\nwhat had been prescribed by the AICTE, can it be said that it is in any
\nmanner adverse to the standards fixed by the AICTE or reduces the standard
\nfixed by it? In our opinion, it does not. On the other hand, if we proceed
\non the basis that the norms fixed by the AICTE would allow admission only
\non the basis of the marks obtained in the qualifying examination the
\nadditional test made applicable is the common entrance test by the State
\nGovernment. If we proceed to take the standard fixed by the AICTE to be the
\ncommon entrance test then the prescription made by the State Government of
\nhaving obtained certain marks higher than the minimum in the qualifying
\nexamination in order to be eligible to participate in the common entrance
\ntest is in addition to the common entrance test. In either event, the
\nstreams proposed by the AICTE are not belittled in any manner. The manner
\nin which the High Court has proceeded is that what has been prescribed by
\nthe AICTE is inexorable and that that minimum alone should be taken into
\nconsideration and no other standard could be fixed even the higher as
\nstated by this Court in Dr. Preeti Srivastava’s case. It is no doubt true
\nas noticed by this Court in Adhiyaman’s case that there may be situations
\nwhen a large number of seats may fall vacant on account of the higher
\nstandards fixed. The standards fixed should always be realistic which are
\nattainable and are within the reach of the candidates. It cannot be said
\nthat the prescriptions by the State Government in addition to those of
\nAICTE in the present case are such which are not attainable or which are
\nnot within the reach of the candidates who seek admission for engineering
\ncolleges. It is not very high percentage of marks that has been prescribed
\nas minimum of 60% downwards, but definitely higher than the mere pass
\nmarks. Excellence in higher education is always insisted upon by series of
\ndecisions of this Court including Dr. Preeti Srivastava’s case. If higher
\nminimum marks have been prescribed, it would certainly add to the
\nexcellence in the matter of admission of the students in higher education.\n<\/p>\n
Argument advanced on behalf of the respondents is that the purpose of
\nfixing norms by the AICTE is to ensure uniformity with extended access of
\neducational opportunity and such norms should not be tinkered with by the
\nState in any manner. We are afraid, this argument ignores the view taken by
\nthis Court in several decisions including Dr. Preeti Srivastav’s case that
\nthe State can always fix a further qualification or additional
\nqualification to what has been prescribed by the AICTE and that proposition
\nis indisputable. The mere fact that there are vacancies in the colleges
\nwould not be a matter, which would go into the question of fixing the
\nstandard of education. Therefore, it is difficult to subscribe to the view
\nthat once they are qualified under the criteria fixed by the AICTE they
\nshould be admitted even if they fall short of the criteria prescribed by
\nthe State. The scope of the relative entries in the Seventh Schedule to the
\nConstitution have to be understood in the manner as stated in the Dr.
\nPreeti Srivastava’s case and, therefore, we need not further elaborate in
\nthis case or consider arguments to the contrary such as application of
\noccupied theory no power could be exercised under Entry 25 of List III as
\nthey would not arise for consideration.\n<\/p>\n
The argument advanced on behalf of the respondents that these matters are
\nindeed governed by the decision in Islamic Academy of Education and Anr. v.
\nState of Karnataka and Ors.,<\/a> [2003] 6 SCC 697, and T.M.A. Pai Foundation v.
\nState of Karnataka,<\/a> [2002] 8 SCC 481. In fact this Court did not consider
\nthe question that has arisen for our consideration in the present case but
\nwas dealing with entirely different issue in relation to fee structure of
\nminority and non-minority educational institutions and whether private
\nunaided professional colleges are entitled to fill their seats to the full
\nextent by their own method of admission. That is not the issue before us at
\nall. Therefore, no reliance could be placed by the respondents on the
\ndecisions either in TMA Pai Foundation or Islamic Academy case.\n<\/p>\n
One other argument is further advanced before us that the criteria fixed by
\nthe AICTE was to be adopted by the respective colleges and once such
\nprescription had been made it was not open to the Government to prescribe
\nfurther standards particularly when they had established the institutions
\nin exercise of their fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19 of the
\nConstitution. However, we do not think this argument can be sustained in
\nany manner. Prescription of standards in education is always accepted to be
\nan appropriate exercise of power by the bodies recognising the colleges or
\ngranting affiliation, like AICTE or the University. If in exercise of such
\npower the prescription had been made, it cannot be said that the whole
\nmatter has been foreclosed.\n<\/p>\n
In this view of the matter, we think these appeals deserve to be allowed in
\npart and the order of the High Court stands modified to the extent of
\nstating that it is permissible for the State Government to prescribe higher
\nqualifications for purposes of admission to the engineering colleges than
\nwhat had been prescribed by the AICTE and what has been prescribed by the
\nState and considered by us is not contrary to the same but is only
\ncomplementary or supplementary to it.\n<\/p>\n
It is made clear that if any admission has been made in any of the colleges
\nof students who fulfil the directions issued by the High Court, their
\nadmissions shall be taken to have been made validly.\n<\/p>\n
The appeals are partly allowed accordingly<\/p>\n
S.L.P [Cl Nos. 24043\/2003. 23-24\/2004, 1038-1039\/2004 and 21966\/2003<\/p>\n
The High Court considered the case of the students in these colleges who
\ndid not appear in the common entrance test but appeared for the private
\nentrance tests conducted by the respective engineering colleges and they
\ncould be admitted to the engineering colleges on the basis of their
\nperformance in such private entrance test. The mere fact that Anna
\nUniversity allowed all the engineering colleges to conduct entrance test by
\nthe concerned colleges cannot militate against the prescription of
\nstandards of excellence in education both by the AICTE and Department of
\nHigher Education. The High Court rejected the same on the basis that the
\nAICTE had already formulated the policy and that policy had to be strictly
\nfollowed by the concerned colleges as long as students had not fulfilled
\nthose minimum qualifications prescribed by the AICTE but only passed in a
\nprivate entrance test would not be qualified for admission to the
\nengineering colleges is perfectly in order and does not call for
\ninterference.\n<\/p>\n
Hence, the special leave petitions stand rejected.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India State Of Tamil Nadu And Anr vs S.V. Bratheep (Minor) And Ors on 16 March, 2004 Bench: S. Rajendra Babu, Dr. Ar. Lakshmanan, G.P. Mathur CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 1626-1628 of 2004 PETITIONER: STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ANR. RESPONDENT: S.V. BRATHEEP (MINOR) AND ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 16\/03\/2004 BENCH: S. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-132091","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nState Of Tamil Nadu And Anr vs S.V. Bratheep (Minor) And Ors on 16 March, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-tamil-nadu-and-anr-vs-s-v-bratheep-minor-and-ors-on-16-march-2004\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State Of Tamil Nadu And Anr vs S.V. Bratheep (Minor) And Ors on 16 March, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-tamil-nadu-and-anr-vs-s-v-bratheep-minor-and-ors-on-16-march-2004\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2004-03-15T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-04-20T20:29:18+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"15 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-tamil-nadu-and-anr-vs-s-v-bratheep-minor-and-ors-on-16-march-2004#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-tamil-nadu-and-anr-vs-s-v-bratheep-minor-and-ors-on-16-march-2004\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State Of Tamil Nadu And Anr vs S.V. Bratheep (Minor) And Ors on 16 March, 2004\",\"datePublished\":\"2004-03-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-04-20T20:29:18+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-tamil-nadu-and-anr-vs-s-v-bratheep-minor-and-ors-on-16-march-2004\"},\"wordCount\":2896,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-tamil-nadu-and-anr-vs-s-v-bratheep-minor-and-ors-on-16-march-2004#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-tamil-nadu-and-anr-vs-s-v-bratheep-minor-and-ors-on-16-march-2004\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-tamil-nadu-and-anr-vs-s-v-bratheep-minor-and-ors-on-16-march-2004\",\"name\":\"State Of Tamil Nadu And Anr vs S.V. Bratheep (Minor) And Ors on 16 March, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2004-03-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-04-20T20:29:18+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-tamil-nadu-and-anr-vs-s-v-bratheep-minor-and-ors-on-16-march-2004#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-tamil-nadu-and-anr-vs-s-v-bratheep-minor-and-ors-on-16-march-2004\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-tamil-nadu-and-anr-vs-s-v-bratheep-minor-and-ors-on-16-march-2004#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State Of Tamil Nadu And Anr vs S.V. Bratheep (Minor) And Ors on 16 March, 2004\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"State Of Tamil Nadu And Anr vs S.V. Bratheep (Minor) And Ors on 16 March, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-tamil-nadu-and-anr-vs-s-v-bratheep-minor-and-ors-on-16-march-2004","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State Of Tamil Nadu And Anr vs S.V. Bratheep (Minor) And Ors on 16 March, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-tamil-nadu-and-anr-vs-s-v-bratheep-minor-and-ors-on-16-march-2004","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2004-03-15T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-04-20T20:29:18+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"15 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-tamil-nadu-and-anr-vs-s-v-bratheep-minor-and-ors-on-16-march-2004#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-tamil-nadu-and-anr-vs-s-v-bratheep-minor-and-ors-on-16-march-2004"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State Of Tamil Nadu And Anr vs S.V. Bratheep (Minor) And Ors on 16 March, 2004","datePublished":"2004-03-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-04-20T20:29:18+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-tamil-nadu-and-anr-vs-s-v-bratheep-minor-and-ors-on-16-march-2004"},"wordCount":2896,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-tamil-nadu-and-anr-vs-s-v-bratheep-minor-and-ors-on-16-march-2004#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-tamil-nadu-and-anr-vs-s-v-bratheep-minor-and-ors-on-16-march-2004","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-tamil-nadu-and-anr-vs-s-v-bratheep-minor-and-ors-on-16-march-2004","name":"State Of Tamil Nadu And Anr vs S.V. Bratheep (Minor) And Ors on 16 March, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2004-03-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-04-20T20:29:18+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-tamil-nadu-and-anr-vs-s-v-bratheep-minor-and-ors-on-16-march-2004#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-tamil-nadu-and-anr-vs-s-v-bratheep-minor-and-ors-on-16-march-2004"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-tamil-nadu-and-anr-vs-s-v-bratheep-minor-and-ors-on-16-march-2004#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State Of Tamil Nadu And Anr vs S.V. Bratheep (Minor) And Ors on 16 March, 2004"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/132091","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=132091"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/132091\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=132091"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=132091"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=132091"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}