Facts of the Case:

The Kerala High Court dealt with a bail petition filed by a teacher accused of assaulting a student with a cane. The incident took place in an educational institution where the teacher allegedly hit the complainant’s son for spreading false rumours that the teacher’s son had died in a vehicle accident caused by the teacher. This action led to the teacher’s arrest, with charges being framed under Section 118 (voluntarily causing hurt with dangerous weapons) of the BNS Act and Section 75 (punishment for cruelty to a child) of the Juvenile Justice Act. The case raised concerns about the legal protection available to teachers in instances where they impose minor disciplinary actions, even in the absence of malice.

Contentions of the Petitioner:

The petitioner (the teacher) countered the allegations, asserting that the incident occurred after the student had repeatedly defied the teacher’s advice to focus on his studies. The student allegedly spread malicious rumours about the teacher’s son’s death, which deeply upset the petitioner. The teacher stated that his intention was simply to correct the student’s behaviour, and he had not caused any severe harm. The teacher argued that the registration of a criminal case against him for what was essentially a disciplinary action was unjustified and would have a chilling effect on teachers’ ability to maintain discipline in schools.

Contentions of the Respondent:

The respondent (the complainant) contended that the teacher’s action of using a cane to hit the student was an unwarranted assault, leading to the filing of the criminal complaint. The complainant argued that the teacher had overreacted to a minor issue, and the use of corporal punishment was inappropriate and unlawful. The complainant further argued that the teacher should be held accountable for the harm caused to the student, irrespective of the teacher’s personal feelings about the situation.

Court’s Observations:

Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan, in his judgment, observed that teachers are increasingly reluctant to take any disciplinary action due to the risk of criminal prosecution. He noted that, in many cases, even minor acts like a pinch, push, or verbal reprimand could lead to criminal cases against teachers based on complaints from students or their parents. The Court recognized that this situation was detrimental to the educational system and would make teachers hesitant to discipline students for fear of legal consequences.

The judge emphasized that teachers should be protected from criminal prosecution when performing their duties in a genuine and non-malicious manner. He further observed that historically, strict discipline by teachers had benefited the student community, shaping their behaviour and character in positive ways.

Justice Kunhikrishnan also remarked on the current challenges in schools, where students have access to weapons and engage in activities like drug use, which makes maintaining discipline even more critical. To address this, the judge suggested that teachers should be allowed to carry a cane as a tool to create a psychological deterrent, though it would not necessarily be used for corporal punishment.

Court’s Order:

The Court granted bail to the petitioner, recognizing that the maximum punishment for the offenses alleged against him was relatively minor, with a maximum sentence of three years for the BNS Act violation and five years for the Juvenile Justice Act violation. The Court imposed strict conditions for bail.

Additionally, the Court directed that, in future cases where complaints are made against teachers for actions in educational institutions, the police must first conduct a preliminary inquiry to determine whether a prima facie case exists before registering a criminal case. During this inquiry, no teacher should be arrested unless necessary. The Court also instructed the police to notify the concerned teacher about the inquiry and ensure due process.

Lastly, the Court directed that the State Police Chief issue a circular within a month instructing police authorities to follow this procedure in cases involving complaints against teachers. The Court reiterated that such protections would help to strengthen the educational system and safeguard the interests of both teachers and students.

Credits: Adv. Deeksha Rai