School Insisting On Students To Wear Uniform Is Not 'Cruelty Against Child' U/S 75 Juvenile Justice Act: Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court has held that the School Principal compelling students to wear uniform while in school is not an offence of cruelty to child under Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act.
Justice A. Badharudeen said that such insistence is to maintain the discipline of school and cannot be held as an act which would cause unnecessary mental or physical harm. The Court also cautioned that if such acts are considered to be an offence, it can affect the discipline of the school.
“If, as part of maintenance of the discipline of the school when wearing of uniform dress is made mandatory, it is the duty of the students to obey the same, so as to keep the dignity and discipline of the school to impart education effectively. IF such acts are given the colour of an offence under Section 75 of the JJ Act, the discipline of the school would become topsy-turvy and the same would disdainfully affect the discipline and the regiment of the school.”
According to the student, she reached the school to know her results and purchase books for the next year. According to her, as it was during vacation, there was no compulsion to wear uniform. The principal on seeing her, asked her why she came in color dress and commented that since she is a person with bulky physique, she should have worn uniform. She was sent back to her house to get her uniform. On these allegations, a crime under Section 77 of the JJ Act was registered against the principal. The principal approached the High Court to quash the proceedings in the case.
The petitioner contended that a prima facie case is not made out. The petitioner submitted that the student's mother was working in the same school. Before the registration of the crime, the mother was given a memo saying that she was careless in attending the examination duty. The petitioner argued that the crime was registered only as a retaliatory step.
The Court noting that a prima facie case is not made out allowed the petition.
Counsel for the Petitioner: Advocates P. Vijaya Bhanu (Sr.), K. R. Arun Krishnan, P. M. Rafiq, M. Revikrishnan, Ajeesh K. Sasi, Mitha Sudhindran, Sruthy K. K., Sruthy N. Bhat, Rahul Sunil
Counsel for the Respondents: Advocates Renjit George (Sr. Public Prosecutor), K. R. Arun Krishnan
Case No.: Crl.M.C. 2948 of 2022
Case Title: Sindhu Sivadas v State of Kerala and Another
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 654