In the name of the right to religion, children cannot be deprived of their right to education. Nor can child labour be legalized in the name of the right to religion. In people vs. Pierson (1903)176N.Y.201, the American Judiciary has laid down the principle that “the right to practice religion freely does not include liberty to expose the children to ill health or death”. Likewise, in Prince vs. Massachusetts 321 US 158, (1944) it has been propounded that religious belief cannot stand in the way of state regulation of child labour. Especially because the Kumaris of Basantapur, Patan and Mubahal are not allowed, according to the custom in practice, to go to school like other girls and they are taught daily for two to three hours at the Kumari house the petitioner claims that their rights are infringed. However, as mentioned above, not only is there no prohibition imposed by any law, but also no written historical document could be found which imposed any restriction on the Kumaris on going to school for study. The practice of not going to school seems to have been followed only on the basis of custom and tradition. However, this type of tradition, custom or belief also does not seem to exist uniformly in different places. There does not seem to exist any restrictive practice or belief forbidding Kumaris to go to school for study in the case of the custom of Kumari prevalent at Bhaktapur ,Bungamati, Makhan Tarlni, Kilagal and Mikhabahal. Even though under the custom of Kumari prevalent at Kwabahal, there has been a belief against sending the Kumari to school, it has been clearly mentioned in the study report that the father of the Kumari had himself sent her to school for study. It also appears that the Kumaris of Basantapur and Patan have been getting their education at the Kumari house itself, the petitioner seems to have taken the plea that the Kumaris’ right to get education had been violated. Since no historical or legal or religious documents seem to have imposed any restriction on the Kumaris by forbidding them to acquire an education, the Kumaris seem free to go school to get an educationwhile at the same time performing their role as Kumari. Although there is a belief in the custom of Kumari of Gabahal forbidding her to go to school, it was found that the father of the Kumari himself had sent her to school. Ours is a society where tradition, custom, belief and conservatism have acquired recognition. These types of things have received recognition in the society due to lack of education. Maintaining one’s religious, social and cultural beliefs and traditions and remaining within the confines of the Constitution, is a matter to be decided by every citizen, every family and guardian of every child as to what is right and what is wrong. It is the guardians and the members of the concerned communities who, remaining within the confines of the Constitution, can become the agents of changes in their traditional customs and practices in tune with the times. Hence, like the father of this Kumari, the guardians of other Kumaris, too, do not seem to face any obstacle in sending them to school to get education, provided that the former so desire. That is to say, since the Kumaris do not seem to face any obstacle in going to school to get education only because of their status as Kumari, there is no possibility of the infringement of the right of Kumaris to get an education. Hence, there is no need to issue any additional order by this court in regard to imparting education to Kumaris. The Kumaris can go to school to get their education, except during the period when they sit at the holy place as a Goddess on the occasion of some festivals. No law seems to have imposed any restriction on Kumaris preventing the enjoyment of all fundamental 128