The High Court, however, said that the School’s statement seemed more of an attempt to brush its previous stance “under the carpet.”
It also noted that the school was named after a Christian missionary, but in denying the child admission, it had gone against the very principles of benevolence and humanity that Christianity and the missionary stood for.
“The sixth respondent has failed not only in this duty but also betrayed the name of the noble Missionary and extremely, extremely distressingly their Christian faith,” the High Court said.
The Court however, said it did not wish to come in the way of the mother’s choice and said that she was free to chose to admit her ward to the respondent-school or to any of the three schools highlighted by the State.
It added though that if the woman choses the respondent-school for her child, the school management must not hold the present litigation against her.
Advocate N Manokaran appeared for the petitioner.
Additional Government Pleader U Baranitharan appeared fir the Tamil Nadu government.
Advocate David Sunder Singh appeared for the TN State Commission for Protection of Child Rights.
M/s S Ramasubramaniam & Associates appeared for the respondent School.
Source: Barandbench
