Teachers Can't Face Criminal Action For Trivial Corrective Measures To Maintain Classroom Discipline: Kerala High Court

Justice Jobin Sebastian noted that the teacher did not have any mala fide intention and only wanted to maintain discipline in the classroom since the complainant student was running around.

“merely because a teacher has inflicted or awarded a trivial punishment as a corrective measure to correct a child or to maintain the discipline of the institution, he or she cannot be prosecuted in a criminal proceeding. If teachers are subjected to criminal prosecution under the Juvenile Justice Act for implementing simple and minimal corrective measures to preserve institutional discipline, the very administration and orderly functioning of educational institutions would be jeopardized,” the Court reasoned.

The prosecution allegation is that the petitioner, who was a class teacher of fifth standard, pulled the hand of the complainant student with an intention to hurt her. It is further alleged that due to this action, the complainant's leg got entangled in a bench and she sustained a contusion and pain on her right knee.

The petitioner was accused of Section 82(1) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 [Corporal punishment] and Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code [Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt]. Aggrieved, the petitioner approached the High Court to quash the final report and further proceedings before the Additional Sessions Court, Pathanamthitta.

It was contended by the petitioner that she only attempted to maintain the discipline in the classroom and that the same is clear from the statements made by the other students who witnessed the incident. She explained that she had asked the complainant, who was running around in the classroom, to sit in her seat and in that process, had caught hold of her hands and pulled her. There was no intention to harass or abuse or cause any injury.

The petitioner further pointed out that there was a delay of more than one month in registering the crime. Moreover, the complainant obtained the treatment certificate almost three months later and her treatment nearer to the date of the incident was only in the outpatient department, it was submitted.

The public prosecutor opposed the plea.

After hearing the parties, the Court emphasized the role of a teacher in disciplining students. It opined that corporal punishments can amount to a crime only if there was a mala fide intention in inflicting the same and cause irreversible future consequences:

“first of all, it is to be noted that a teacher has an important role in shaping the character, behaviour and future of a student. Apart from imparting knowledge, teachers have a duty to guide, correct and discipline the student. In discharging such responsibility, the teachers have a role akin to that of a parent. However, such responsibility must always be exercised with care and without causing harm to the child… However, if a teacher inflicts corporal punishment with mala fide intentions, which would have irreversible consequences on the future of a child, including his or her mental well-being, the same has to be dealt with seriously.”

The Court was of the view that the allegations do not show any mala fide intention on the part of the petitioner, who only intended to discipline her student. It found that the offences alleged are not attracted.

Thus, the Court allowed the plea and quashed the criminal proceedings.

Counsel for the petitioner: Gopakumar R. Thaliyal, R.B. Balachandran, Sandeep V.

Counsel for the respondents: Navas V.A. – Senior Public Prosecutor