The main legal principle established in the judgment is the State's duty to protect fundamental rights, including the right to life, and the availability of compensation in public law proceedings for the violation of such rights.

( 1 ) NOBLE Prize Winner Poetess Gabriela Mistral of Chile while speaking about the faults committed by society as regards the children spoke thus :"we are guilty of many errors and many faults, but our worst crime is abandoning the children, neglecting the fountain of life. Many of the things we need can wait, the child cannot. Right now is the time his bones are being formed, his blood is being made and his senses are being developed. "to him we cannot answer Tomorrow. His name is today. "the Apex Court in the case of M. C. Mehta v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1996) 6 SCC 756 : air 1997 SC 699 while speaking about the obligation of the State and Society towards the children in the Indian ethos quoted a stanza which reads thus :"i am the child. All the world waits for my coming. All the earth watches with interest to see what i shall become. Civilization hangs in the balance. For what I am, the world of tomorrow will be. I am the Child. You hold in your hand my destiny. You determine, largely, whether I shall succeed or fail; give me, I pray you, these things that make for happiness. Train me, I beg you, that I may be a blessing to the world. " (Mamie Gene Cole)Long back John Ruskin had expressed his view as under :"i hold it to indisputable, that the first duty of a State is to see that every child born therein shall be well housed, clothed, fed and educated, till it attains year of discretion. "we have reproduced from the thoughts of the great poets, jurists and thinkers relating to a concept of child and the collective responsibility towards the child, as a child fundamentally is the treasure of the future and has the potentiality to shine despite the antagonism of the clouds and accomplishes things which makes a civilisation a sustained one. But, the great populace of india cannot totally depend upon the potential propensity of a child, for a child may cry that he is the future and if he is dying there is no possibility of future. Therefore, the State, the society, and the collective at large have the sacrosanct duty to inject the kinetic dynamics to a child to make him grow to live, to erode the clouds, ostracize the antagonism, develop empathy and usher in the laser-beam of culture and civilisation in a well organised society. In the name of control of law and order situation, it cannot exceed its power by taking recourse to uncalled for and unwarranted acts to unceremoniously crush the tolerance capacity of the collective. The State cannot take advantage of the poor strata of the society who are not well equipped to fight against the city Halls. The State cannot afford to nasalize and choke the voice of the unknown because they cannot articulate their grievance adequately. It would be an anathema to proclaim 'he speaketh too much'. Because we are compelled to say the same would only intensify the grief and danger and may in the ultimate eventuate cause social tribulations and give rise to mild concavity having the effect-potentiality of causing earthquakes in a democratic body polity. The state cannot afford to bid good bye to the children, for such farewell frenzy would not only jettison the conception of accountability but also compel and constrain the nation to go for a constant mourning in the silence and stillness of shock. The constitutional safeguards for a child is for more than what is available to an adult.

( 2 ) WE have begun with the aforesaid prefatory note as the case at hand depicts a sad incident by which the life spark of a seven year old child got extinguished and life span of a seventeen year old boy got curtailed. Should the State's conception and vision of handling a law and order situation allowing to blow the unkind wind of winter bringing a cateclysm and catastrophe to the families, go unnoticed and unremedied?

( 3 ) THE crucial question that arises for consideration is whether the death caused in the name of law and order is justified? was it imperatively necessitous? Was it avoidable