School's Duty Of Care Extends To Children Travelling In School Bus: Karnataka High Court Refuses To Quash FIR Over Child's Permanent Eye Injury

The Karnataka High Court has recently refused to quash a criminal case registered against a private school after a 4th standard student lost vision in one eye and suffered 40% permanent disability when coloured confetti was allegedly sprayed into his eyes by other students inside a school bus. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 225]While noting that the school bus is an extension of the school itself, the single judge bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna held that the allegations levelled against the school do not merely concern a 'transient hurt' but that 'of a childhood permanently scarred'.“…A child which travels in a school bus which is an extension of the school itself, cannot be left high and dry till the child from the school reaches the house even if it is the last stop. The safety of children in a school bus is not a matter of charity or convenience; it is a solemn obligation mandated under the Statute as well”, the court further observed.The High Court, after perusing the FIR, noted in the order that the allegations prima facie warrant investigation, and that the school cannot absolve itself from its liability by taking a defence at the threshold that the act was done by another student. The state had earlier drawn the court's attention to the finding by the police that the CCTV camera installed inside the school bus was not functionalEarlier, the school had also argued that its management could not be made liable for an act done by another student inside the school bus post the school hours.However, the complainant-father had contended that the school bus 'is not a detached island beyond institutional responsibility', making the bus 'an extension of the school itself'.“…Whether there was an attendant in the bus, a security or whether the CCTV camera was installed, even if installed, was merely ornamental or functional, whether prohibited or dangerous material was allowed to be carried by children, whether the school had issued and enforced adequate safety instructions, and whether the management failed in its duty of supervision are all matters which cry for investigation….”, the court underscored, concurring with the arguments of the complainant father.To recap,in August 2025, the complainant's son, studying in Class IV was returning home in the respondent school's own bus. It was during this journey that some of the other passenger-students allegedly sprayed coloured sparklers inside the bus, which entered the eyes of the victim-child. The irreversible injury attributed to the confetti spray resulted in loss of vision in one of his eyes, coupled with a permanent disability of 40 per cent to the whole body. As a result, the father lodged a complaint with the police in September 2025, citing negligence by the school management and lack of attendant supervision as well as functional CCTV cameras inside the school bus. By approaching the High Court, the School had secured an interim stay against the complainant father's FIR in October 2025.However, while disposing the plea, concurring with the arguments levelled by the complainant father, the court noted as below: "The allegation, therefore, is not of a transient hurt; it is of a childhood permanently scarred….A school which undertakes to transport children assumes a duty of care that is heightened, not diminished, by the tender age of those entrusted to it”, the court noted in the order while referring to the statutory requirement under Section 1C[Transportation] of Karnataka Educational Institutions (Classification, Regulation and Prescription of Curricula, etc.) (Amendment) Rules, 2018.Section 1C of the Rules talk about the requirement of teacher or attendants accompanying children till the last stop, qualification mandates of drivers and permit requirements of the vehicle.The High Court noted that Section 125(a) of BNS, 2023 [penalising anyone who acts so rashly or negligently that it endangers human life or personal safety or causes hurt to others] has been rightly invoked.“…To attract the mischief of rashness or negligence against a person, such act of omission or commission must be attributable to the said accused. The complaint clearly meets the ingredients of Section 125(a). Therefore, investigation in the least is a must…”, the court further said.While dismissing the petition for the lack of merits, the court asked the investigation by the police to continue.“…. The petitioner may ultimately demonstrate absence of criminal negligence. But that conclusion cannot be recorded today by strangulating the investigation at its inception, especially when the incident has resulted in permanent disability to a child, a child of tender age, yet to behold the full bloom of life, has been condemned to live with permanent visual impairment”, the single judge bench reasoned.Case Title: Divyajyothi School Management v. State of Karnataka & Anr.Case No: Criminal Petition No. 13718 of 2025Citation: [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 225]Click Here To Read/Download Order

School's Duty Of Care Extends To Children Travelling In School Bus: Karnataka High Court Refuses To Quash FIR Over Child's Permanent Eye Injury

Sebin James

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Sebin James

School's Duty Of Care Extends To Children Travelling In School Bus: Karnataka High Court Refuses To Quash FIR Over Child's Permanent Eye Injury

Sebin James

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Sebin James

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers