{"id":63004,"date":"2003-04-30T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2003-04-29T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-secretary-vs-master-j-rajkumar-minor-on-30-april-2003"},"modified":"2018-11-28T15:15:45","modified_gmt":"2018-11-28T09:45:45","slug":"the-secretary-vs-master-j-rajkumar-minor-on-30-april-2003","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-secretary-vs-master-j-rajkumar-minor-on-30-april-2003","title":{"rendered":"The Secretary vs Master J. Rajkumar (Minor) on 30 April, 2003"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">The Secretary vs Master J. Rajkumar (Minor) on 30 April, 2003<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n\nDated: 30\/04\/2003\n\nCoram\n\nThe Honourable Mr. B. SUBHASHAN REDDY, Chief Justice\nand\nThe Honourable Mr. Justice D. MURUGESAN\n\nW.A. No.595 of 2003\nand\nW.A.M.P. No.783 of 2003\n\n1.     The Secretary,\n        Educational Department,\n        Government of Tamil Nadu,\n        Secretariat, Chennai - 9,\n\n2.      The Director of Medical Education,\n        Directorate of Medical Education,\n        No.162, Periyar EVR High Road,\n        Kilpauk, Chennai - 10.\n\n3.      The Secretary,\n        Selection Committee,\n        Directorate of Medical Education,\n        No.162, Periyar EVR High Road,\n        Kilpauk, Chennai - 10.                  ...     Appellants\n\n-Vs-\n\nMaster J. Rajkumar (Minor)\nRep. By his father and natural guardian\nD. Joseph,\nElagiri.                                        ...     Respondent\n\n        Appeal against the order of the learned single Judge dated 30.12.200 2\npassed in W.P.No.36781 of 2002.\n\n!For Appellant                  :       Mr.  V.R.  Rajasekaran, Spl.  G.P.\n                                        (Education)\n\n^For Respondent                 :       Mr.  Om Prakash for M\/s.Ramalingam\n                                        Associates\n\n:J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n<p>THE HON&#8217;BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE<\/p>\n<p>        This Writ Appeal raises an important question of law for consideration<br \/>\nregarding the enforceability of 3% reservation for the persons suffering  with<br \/>\ndisabilities  as  provided  in  the  &#8216;The  Persons  with  Disabilities  (Equal<br \/>\nOpportunities,  Protection  of  Rights  and  Full  Participation)  Act,  1995,<br \/>\nhereinafter referred to as the Disabilities Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>        2.      Few facts, leading to the filing of the Writ Petition No.36781<br \/>\nof 2002, may be necessary to be stated.  The respondent is a minor represented<br \/>\nby  his  father  and is 50% physically disabled because of polio attack during<br \/>\nhis childhood.  He appeared in Entrance Examination conducted for  Medical\/BDS<br \/>\ncourse  for  the academic year 2002 &#8211; 2003 and secured 285.37 out of 300 marks<br \/>\nbut he could not get admission in Open Category and among physically disabled,<br \/>\nhe was placed at fifth rank.  He could not get a seat in M.B.B.S.   course  as<br \/>\nonly three  seats were earmarked for disabled.  However, he was offered a seat<br \/>\nin B.D.S.  in payment category.  Aggrieved by the said action,  he  had  filed<br \/>\nthe writ petition.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.      The  learned  single  Judge, by his order dated 30.12.2002, upheld the<br \/>\nplea that the respondent\/writ petitioner was entitled for  a  seat  construing<br \/>\nSection  39  of  the  Disabilities Act as mandatory, disapproved earmarking of<br \/>\nonly three seats out of the sanctioned seats of 1,255 and held that 39  seats,<br \/>\nconforming  to  3%  reservation  for  the  disabled,  ought to be provided and<br \/>\nconsequently issued directions to the appellants  herein  to  admit  the  writ<br \/>\npetitioner in the  M.B.B.S.    course  for the academic year 2002 &#8211; 2003.  The<br \/>\nargument of the appellants before the learned single Judge that the  provision<br \/>\ncontained  in  Section 39 of the Disabilities Act is not applicable and in any<br \/>\nevent, it is only directory and not mandatory, was  negatived.    Hence,  this<br \/>\nAppeal.\n<\/p>\n<p>        4.      Mr.  V.R.    Rajasekaran, learned Special Government Pleader (<br \/>\nEducation), appearing for the appellants, strenuously contended that the State<br \/>\nhad already enacted the Tamil Nadu  Backward  Classes,  Scheduled  Castes  and<br \/>\nScheduled  Tribes  (Reservation  of  Seats  in  Educational  Institutions  and<br \/>\nAppointments or Posts in the Services under State)  Act,  199  3,  hereinafter<br \/>\nreferred to  as  T.N.    Act  45  of  1994, and as such, there is no scope for<br \/>\nimplementing the Disabilities Act enacted by the Central Government  and  that<br \/>\nin any event, the provision contained in Section 39 of the Disabilities Act is<br \/>\nonly  directory  and  not  mandatory,  that  it  is  not  possible  to give 3%<br \/>\nreservation for disabled, that the three seats reserved for M.B.B.S.    course<br \/>\nare  sufficient  for  them,  that even those seats have been filled up for the<br \/>\nacademic year 2002 &#8211; 2003, that classes have begun long before  the  order  of<br \/>\nthe learned single Judge and that the order of the learned single Judge is fit<br \/>\nto be set aside.\n<\/p>\n<p>        5.      Mr.   Omprakash, learned counsel appearing for the respondent\/<br \/>\npetitioner, has countered the said arguments submitting that Section 39 of the<br \/>\nDisabilities Act is mandatory in nature, that the respondent\/ writ petitioner,<br \/>\nwho had secured good marks, was entitled as of right to be admitted under  the<br \/>\nquota  for  disabled,  that  the  quota for disabled should be only 3% and not<br \/>\nthree seats, that T.N.  Act 45 of 1994 cannot nullify the beneficial provision<br \/>\nprovided under the Disabilities Act and that the order of the  learned  single<br \/>\nJudge has got to be affirmed.\n<\/p>\n<p>        6.      Of  the  contentions  and  the  rival  contentions  made,  the<br \/>\nfollowing points emerge for consideration;\n<\/p>\n<p>(i)     whether the Disabilities Act enacted by the Central Government is  not<br \/>\neffective in Tamil Nadu in view of T.N.  Act 45 of 1994;\n<\/p>\n<p>(ii)    whether  Section 39 of the Disabilities Act is mandatory or directory;<br \/>\nand<\/p>\n<p>(iii)   whether the writ petition is hit by laches and the writ petitioner  is<br \/>\nnot  entitled  for  the  relief  in  view  of  the filling up of seats for the<br \/>\nacademic year 2002 &#8211; 2003.\n<\/p>\n<p>7.      The Supreme Court in <a href=\"\/doc\/151374\/\">INDIRA SAWHNEY v.  UNION OF INDIA  (AIR<\/a>  1993  SC\n<\/p>\n<p>477)  held  that  reservations  contemplated  in Clause 4 of Article 14 of the<br \/>\nConstitution  should  not  exceed  50%  excepting  in  certain   extraordinary<br \/>\nsituations  where  relaxation  may  become imperative but cautioned that while<br \/>\ndoing so, a special case should be made out like the population inhabiting far<br \/>\nflung and remote areas.  The Tamil Nadu Act 45 of  1994  was  enacted  seeking<br \/>\nsuch  relaxation  to  reserve 69% of the seats in educational institutions and<br \/>\nvacancies in public employment for Backward Classes,  Most  Backward  Classes,<br \/>\nScheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.  The said Act is under challenge before<br \/>\nthe Supreme Court and is pending adjudication.\n<\/p>\n<p>8.      Tamil Nadu Act 45 of 1994 deals with class reservation on the basis of<br \/>\nbackwardness.  The   reservations   therein   are  vertical.    So  far  class<br \/>\nreservation is concerned, INDIRA SAWHNEY&#8217;s case (supra) held that  reservation<br \/>\nis vertical.    But  coming  to  gender  reservation,  it  is not vertical but<br \/>\nhorizontal and has to be reserved according to  the  percentage  specified  in<br \/>\neach of  the  classes  i.e.    Other  Communities,  Backward Communities, Most<br \/>\nBackward Communities, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled  Tribes.    Likewise,  3%<br \/>\nreservation  for  Physically  Handicapped  should  also  be horizontal and not<br \/>\nvertical.  3% reservation in Tamil Nadu Medical  Education  works  out  to  37<br \/>\nseats out of 1,255 seats.  These 37 seats have to spread horizontally into the<br \/>\nabove  categories viz., Other Communities, Backward Communities, Most Backward<br \/>\nCommunities, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.   As  such,  there  is  no<br \/>\nconflict  in  between  the  Disabilities Act and Tamil Nadu Act 45 of 1994 and<br \/>\neven if such conflicts occur, then the Disabilities Act being a later one  and<br \/>\ntraceable  to  Entry  25  List III of Schedule 7 of Indian Constitution, would<br \/>\nprevail over any repugnant provisions in Tamil Nadu Act 45 of 1994.\n<\/p>\n<p>9.      Section 39 of the Disabilities Act reads as follows:    &#8220;39.    All<br \/>\neducational institutions to reserve seats for persons with disabilities.-  All<br \/>\nGovernment   educational   institutions  and  other  educational  institutions<br \/>\nreceiving aid from the Government, shall reserve not less than three per  cent<br \/>\nseats for persons with disabilities.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>A  bare  reading of the above Section itself would not leave any doubt that it<br \/>\nis mandatory and not directory.  Further, the very object  and  intendment  in<br \/>\nenacting  Disabilities  Act  is to provide equal opportunities to the disabled<br \/>\nand a reading of the decision <a href=\"\/doc\/1962463\/\">JAVED ABIDI v.  UNION OF INDIA<\/a> (1999)  1  S.C.C.\n<\/p>\n<p>467)  makes  it  clear that the said provision is mandatory and not directory.<br \/>\nIt is apt to extract the emphasis laid by  the  Supreme  Court,  which  is  in<br \/>\nfollowing terms:\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;..It  may  be  borne  in  mind  that  the  Economic and Social<br \/>\nCommission for Asian and  Pacific  Region  held  a  meeting  at  Beijing  from<br \/>\n1-12-1992  to 5-12-1992 and adopted the Proclamation on the Full Participation<br \/>\nand Equality of People  with  Disabilities  in  the  Region  and  India  is  a<br \/>\nsignatory to  the  said  Proclamation.    The  Act  in  question was passed by<br \/>\nParliament which intends to provide for the following as is apparent from  the<br \/>\nStatements of Objects and Reasons:\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8216;(i)  to  spell  out the responsibility of the State towards the prevention of<br \/>\ndisabilities, protection of rights,  provision  of  medical  care,  education,<br \/>\ntraining, employment and rehabilitation of persons with disabilities;\n<\/p>\n<p>(ii) to create barrier-free environment for persons with disabilities;\n<\/p>\n<p>(iii)  to  remove  any discrimination against persons with disabilities in the<br \/>\nsharing of development benefits, vis-`-vis, non-disabled persons;\n<\/p>\n<p>(iv) to counteract any situation of the abuse and the exploitation of  persons<br \/>\nwith disabilities;\n<\/p>\n<p>(v)  to  lay  down  strategies for comprehensive development of programmes and<br \/>\nservices and equalisation of opportunities for persons with disabilities; and<\/p>\n<p>(vi)  to  make  special  provision  for  the  integration  of   persons   with<br \/>\ndisabilities into the social mainstream.&#8217;<\/p>\n<p>The  Committees  constituted  by  the  Central  Government  as  well as by the<br \/>\nrespective State Governments must, therefore, make  an  earnest  endeavour  to<br \/>\nachieve  the  objectives,  as  indicated  above,  in  exercise of their powers<br \/>\nconferred under the Act.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>It is now clinching that the above beneficial provision is mandatory  and  not<br \/>\ndirectory.\n<\/p>\n<p>        10.     The  writ  petition  was  filed in the month of September 2002<br \/>\nseeking admission under the reserved  quota  for  Physically  Handicapped  and<br \/>\npending adjudication,  a  direction  was  sought  for  to reserve a seat.  The<br \/>\npetition was allowed by the learned single Judge in  the  month  of  December,<\/p>\n<p>2002.  There  has  been no stay of the operation of the said judgment.  In the<br \/>\ncircumstances, we cannot accede to the contention of  the  learned  Government<br \/>\nPleader that the writ petition is hit by laches.\n<\/p>\n<p>        11.     In  the above circumstances, we fully concur with the judgment<br \/>\nrendered by the learned  single  Judge  Mr.    Justice  E.    Padmanabhan  and<br \/>\naccordingly, dismiss this Writ Appeal.  Consequently, W.A.M.P.  No.783 of 2003<br \/>\nis closed.\n<\/p>\n<p>        12.     In  order  to  see  that  the benefits of the Disabilities Act<br \/>\nreach to all the disabled covered by the said Act, a copy of this judgment  be<br \/>\ncommunicated  to  the  Chief  Secretary,  Government  of  Tamil  Nadu,  with a<br \/>\ndirection to issue necessary instructions  to  the  concerned  authorities  to<br \/>\nfollow  the  rule of reservation of 3% to the disabled in all the Governmental<br \/>\neducational institutions and also the educational  institutions  running  with<br \/>\nthe aid from the Government.\n<\/p>\n<p>(B.S.R., CJ) (D.M., J)<br \/>\nbh\/<\/p>\n<p>LR Entry:Yes<br \/>\nInternet:Yes<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court The Secretary vs Master J. Rajkumar (Minor) on 30 April, 2003 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated: 30\/04\/2003 Coram The Honourable Mr. B. SUBHASHAN REDDY, Chief Justice and The Honourable Mr. Justice D. MURUGESAN W.A. No.595 of 2003 and W.A.M.P. No.783 of 2003 1. The Secretary, Educational Department, Government [&hellip;]<\/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":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-63004","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>The Secretary vs Master J. Rajkumar (Minor) on 30 April, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/the-secretary-vs-master-j-rajkumar-minor-on-30-april-2003\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The Secretary vs Master J. Rajkumar (Minor) on 30 April, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-secretary-vs-master-j-rajkumar-minor-on-30-april-2003\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2003-04-29T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-11-28T09:45:45+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=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-secretary-vs-master-j-rajkumar-minor-on-30-april-2003#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-secretary-vs-master-j-rajkumar-minor-on-30-april-2003\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The Secretary vs Master J. Rajkumar (Minor) on 30 April, 2003\",\"datePublished\":\"2003-04-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-11-28T09:45:45+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-secretary-vs-master-j-rajkumar-minor-on-30-april-2003\"},\"wordCount\":1490,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-secretary-vs-master-j-rajkumar-minor-on-30-april-2003#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-secretary-vs-master-j-rajkumar-minor-on-30-april-2003\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-secretary-vs-master-j-rajkumar-minor-on-30-april-2003\",\"name\":\"The Secretary vs Master J. Rajkumar (Minor) on 30 April, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2003-04-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-11-28T09:45:45+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-secretary-vs-master-j-rajkumar-minor-on-30-april-2003#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-secretary-vs-master-j-rajkumar-minor-on-30-april-2003\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-secretary-vs-master-j-rajkumar-minor-on-30-april-2003#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The Secretary vs Master J. Rajkumar (Minor) on 30 April, 2003\"}]},{\"@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":"The Secretary vs Master J. Rajkumar (Minor) on 30 April, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/the-secretary-vs-master-j-rajkumar-minor-on-30-april-2003","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Secretary vs Master J. Rajkumar (Minor) on 30 April, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-secretary-vs-master-j-rajkumar-minor-on-30-april-2003","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2003-04-29T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-11-28T09:45:45+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-secretary-vs-master-j-rajkumar-minor-on-30-april-2003#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-secretary-vs-master-j-rajkumar-minor-on-30-april-2003"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The Secretary vs Master J. Rajkumar (Minor) on 30 April, 2003","datePublished":"2003-04-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-11-28T09:45:45+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-secretary-vs-master-j-rajkumar-minor-on-30-april-2003"},"wordCount":1490,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-secretary-vs-master-j-rajkumar-minor-on-30-april-2003#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-secretary-vs-master-j-rajkumar-minor-on-30-april-2003","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-secretary-vs-master-j-rajkumar-minor-on-30-april-2003","name":"The Secretary vs Master J. Rajkumar (Minor) on 30 April, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2003-04-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-11-28T09:45:45+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-secretary-vs-master-j-rajkumar-minor-on-30-april-2003#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-secretary-vs-master-j-rajkumar-minor-on-30-april-2003"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-secretary-vs-master-j-rajkumar-minor-on-30-april-2003#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The Secretary vs Master J. Rajkumar (Minor) on 30 April, 2003"}]},{"@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\/63004","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=63004"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/63004\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=63004"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=63004"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=63004"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}