JUDGMENT

S. H. Kapadia, CJI.-We have had the benefit of carefully considering the erudite judgment delivered by our esteemed and learned Brother Radhakrishnan, J. Regretfully, we find ourselves in the unenviable position of having to disagree with the views expressed therein concerning the non- applicability of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (for short “the 2009 Act”) to the unaided non-minority schools. .

2. The judgment of Brother Radhakrishnan, J. fully sets out the various provisions of the 2009 Act as well as the issues which arise for determination, the core issue concerns the constitutional validity of the 2009 Act.

Introduction

3. To say that “a thing is constitutional is not to say that it is desirable” [see Dennis v. United States,1 (1950) 341 US 494].

4. A fundamental principle for the interpretation of a written Constitution has been spelt out in R. v. Burah [reported in2 (1878) 5 I.A. 178] which reads as under:

“The established Courts of Justice, when a question arises whether the prescribed limits have been exceeded, must of necessity determine that question; and the only way in which they can properly do so, is by looking to the