P&H High Court Asks Union To Consider Suggestions On LGBTQ+ Children's Safety, Directs Haryana Schools, CBSE To Enforce Anti-Bullying Guidelines

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has directed the Haryana Department of School Education to ensure that every school in the State, whatever its affiliation, complies with the student-safety guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in Sukdeb Saha v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2025).

In particular, it must ensure that each school's grievance mechanism and internal committee expressly cover bullying and harassment on the basis of gender, gender identity and sexual orientation.

Justice Manisha Batra issued the directions in a petition filed by the mother of a 16-year-old Class 10 student in Faridabad who died by suicide in February 2022. She alleged that he had been bullied, harassed and sexually assaulted by schoolmates for years over his perceived sexual orientation and gender expression, and that the school failed to act on her complaints.

The Court declined to frame a fresh set of guidelines for LGBTQIA+ students, since the binding Sukdeb Saha guidelines already hold the field. It held that the real problem lay in implementation:

“At the same time, the facts of the present case show that guidelines which remain on paper offer little protection to a child in distress. The CBSE circular of the year 2015 was in force throughout the period during which the deceased child is alleged to have suffered. As per the record, the school was informed about his condition by his mother and by his treating Psychologist. The real issue, therefore, is the effective implementation of the existing guidelines at the level of the schools.”

The Court however added that, "Union of India is the authority which has framed and circulated the national guidelines on school safety to all the States and Union Territories. The suggestions made by the petitioner...relate to the counsellor-student ratio, training of counsellors to deal with children of the LGBTQIA+ spectrum and sensitisation through the curriculum. These suggestions deserve to be considered by the said respondent in consultation with NCERT."

The petitioner submitted that from Class 6 onwards her son was called humiliating names and was bullied and physically and sexually assaulted by a group of students on the school premises. She also alleged cyberbullying through fake social media accounts.

She stated that he was treated for anxiety, depression and panic attacks, and that in September 2021 a clinical psychologist certified that he was suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder due to sexual harassment and abuse by his peers. The psychologist also advised the school to take action. The mother emailed the Principal naming the students involved, but alleged that no effective action followed.

During the Class 10 Board examinations in February 2022, she alleged, he was not given a scribe for his first paper. In another paper, the Headmistress allegedly told him that “there was nothing like mental illness” and that he and his mother were taking undue advantage. He committed suicide on February 24, 2022. In the note he left, he said the school had killed him, and he named the Headmistress and senior school authorities.

An FIR was registered under Section 306 IPC, and offences under Sections 6, 8, 18 and 21 of the POCSO Act were added later. The final report was filed in December 2022. In November 2023, the mother gave up her prayer for transfer of the investigation to the CBI, but pressed her prayers for court monitoring of the investigation and for national guidelines to protect LGBTQIA+ students.

After hearing the submissions,  Relying on Vineet Narain v. Union of India and Narmada Bai v. State of Gujarat, the Court held that monitoring by a superior court ends once the charge-sheet is filed. The prayer was therefore dismissed as infructuous.

It added that the mother remains free to raise her other grievances before the trial court. These include the non-preservation of CCTV footage, the failure to seize the accused's devices, and the invocation of only Section 21 POCSO against the school authorities instead of abetment under Section 16.

The Court noted that, under Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya v. State of Gujarat, the Magistrate's power to order further investigation continues until charges are framed.

The Court said that the inherent power under Section 482 CrPC “is not a power to frame policy for the educational institutions of the entire country.” Several of the suggestions in the petition were matters of educational policy for the executive and expert bodies, gender-neutral washrooms, a gender-neutral uniform code, specific chapters in textbooks.

Because the issue concerned children's right to life and dignity under Article 21, the Court examined whether there was any gap in the existing framework and found that “the field is not unoccupied.”

The framework already includes, CBSE's 2015 anti-bullying circular (Acad-17/2015), which requires an Anti-Bullying Committee, counsellors and a confidential reporting system, the Centre's School Safety Guidelines of 2014 and 2021, NCERT's May 2025 module on transgender persons' concerns in schooling, the Manodarpan initiative.

The Court said the Sukdeb Saha guidelines, issued under Article 32 and binding under Article 141 on all educational institutions irrespective of affiliation, addressed “the very concerns raised by the petitioner.” It pointed in particular to the following:

The Court held that a parallel set of guidelines from the High Court “may create confusion in their implementation.”

It also rejected CBSE's request to be deleted from the array of respondents. As the affiliating body, and one of the authorities to which annual reports under Guideline X are submitted, CBSE could be directed to ensure compliance with law already declared. The Court said that doing so “do[es] not amount to framing any new policy.”

The Court issued a set of directions which includes the following:

Haryana School Education Department, Within three months, through District Education Officers, must ensure that all schools in Haryana comply with Sukdeb Saha Guidelines II, III, VII, VIII and X and the 2021 School Safety Guidelines.

It must also ensure that every school's mechanism and internal committee expressly cover complaints of bullying and harassment based on gender, gender identity and sexual orientation; such complaints are dealt with promptly and confidentially, complaints disclosing a cognizable offence are reported to the police as the law requires.

CBSE should ensure treat Within three months, it must instruct its affiliated schools within the High Court's jurisdiction to strictly comply with the 2015 circular and Sukdeb Saha. It must also call for and scrutinise the annual reports under Guideline X, and act under its bye-laws if schools do not comply.

Union of India must treat the petition as a representation, in particular the suggestions on counsellor-student ratios, training of counsellors to deal with LGBTQIA+ children, and sensitisation through the curriculum. It must decide on them in consultation with NCERT by a speaking order within six months, added the Court.

Mr. Arpandeep Narula, Advocate with for the petitioner.

Mr. Dheeraj Jain, Senior Advocate with Ms. Gurmeet Sagoo, Advocate

for respondent No.1-Union of India.

Mr. Prateek Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.2-CBI.

Mr. Beant Singh Seemar, Advocate for respondent No.3-CBSE.

Mr. Neeraj Poswal, AAG, Haryana for respondents No.4 to 7.

Mr. A.D.S. Sukhija, Advocate (Amicus Curiae).