Teacher's Disciplinary Action Against Students Can't Be Criminalised Under POCSO Act, Will Corrode Educational Institutions: Madras High Court

Justice Victoria Gowri remarked that while offences under the POCSO Act have to be dealt with seriousness, the sanctity of the Act should also be maintained, which is to protect the genuine victims. The court noted that if a teacher performing a legitimate disciplinary function is exposed to criminal prosecution on exaggerated allegations, the Act would be misused and it would corrode the educational institution.

“Allegations under the POCSO Act, 2012, deserve utmost seriousness; false or exaggerated invocation of its provisions, however, equally undermines the sanctity of the statute meant for genuine victims. A teacher discharging legitimate disciplinary functions cannot be exposed to criminal prosecution upon exaggerated or misconceived allegations, for such misuse has the potential to corrode educational institutions themselves,” the court said.

The court was hearing a petition filed by a teacher, seeking to quash the criminal case registered against him under the POCSO Act in the Special Court at Tirunelveli. As per the prosecution, the victim girl, who was studying in Class VII at the time of the alleged incident, had disclosed to her mother that the teacher had subjected her to bad touch and threatened her with academic consequences if she disclosed the incident. Based on a complaint, a case was registered against the teacher for offences under Sections 7 and 8 of the POCSO Act.

Seeking to quash the case, the teacher argued that he was being victimised due to internal management hostility over a service matter. He pointed out that an earlier motivated case was also quashed by the court. It was further argued that even if the alleged act was taken at its highest, it was an exaggeration of a classroom disciplinary action and would not satisfy the legal ingredients of “Sexual intent”.

The State submitted that the chargesheet had already been laid and the disputed question of facts should ordinarily be left to trial. The de facto complainant informed the court that the complaint was due to a misunderstanding and that neither the victim nor the de facto complainant desired continuation of prosecution.

The court noted that, as per Section 7 of the POCSO Act, sexual intent was not incidental but foundational and was the indispensable mens rea. The court noted that in the present case, there was no material to show that the alleged act had a sexual overtone. The court also observed that there was nothing to show criminal intimidation on the part of the teacher, and it was merely a disciplinary action. The court also noted that the victim herself disowned any allegation of sexual abuse.

The court held that criminal law cannot be used as an instrument to criminalise corrective action. The court added that when the prosecution's case rested on misunderstandings instead of a real offence, judicial intervention was not just permissible but imperative.

“This Court is conscious that child protection laws are to shield the vulnerable, not to punish ordinary human interactions bereft of criminality. Where prosecution rests not upon a real offence but upon misunderstanding amplified into accusation, judicial intervention is not merely permissible but imperative,” the court said.

The court thus allowed the plea and quashed the case against the teacher.

Counsel for Petitioners: Mr. R. Anand

Counsel for Respondent: Mr. B. Thanga Aravindh Government Advocate (Crl. Side), Mr. J. Ashok

Case Title: S Rajadurai Lingam v The State of Tamil Nadu

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 203

Case No: Crl.O.P.(MD).No.16736 of 2024