'Corporal Punishment Isn't Part Of Education, Against Article 21': Chhattisgarh HC Denies Relief To Teacher In Student's Suicide Case

Observing that subjecting a child to corporal punishment for 'reforming him' cannot be part of education and that the same violates a child's Freedom of life and liberty guaranteed by Article 21 and robs him of his dignity, the Chhattisgarh High Court recently dismissed a petition moved by a teacher seeking to quash an FIR in connection with abetting the suicide of a 12-year-old student.

"It also appears to us that corporal punishment is not keeping with child's dignity. Besides, it is cruel to subject the child to physical violence in school in the name of discipline or education. Child being a precious national resource is to be nurtured and attended with tenderness and care and not with cruelty. Subjecting the child to corporal punishment for reforming him cannot be part of education," a bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal observed in its 8-page order.

In its July 29 order, the Court also stressed that the imposition of corporal punishment on a child violates their right to life under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees freedom against cruelty, physical or mental violence, injury or abuse, exploitation, and sexual abuse. The Court also noted that these rights apply to children who are equally human and deserve respect.

Further, the Court also referred to the Supreme Court's ruling in the case of Bandhua Mukti Morcha vs Union Of India & Ors 1997 to emphasise that a child cannot develop to be a responsible and productive member of society unless an environment is created which is conducive to his social and physical health.

The Court made these observations while dealing with an FIR and chargesheet quashing petition filed by Sister Mercy @ Elizabeth Jose, a teacher in a school in the Surguja district of the state. She has been booked under Section 305 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) on the allegations of abetting the suicide of a class 6th student.

The female student hanged herself in February this year while leaving behind a suicide note, accusing the petitioner (her teacher) of harassment. Allegedly, the petitioner (teacher) had found the victim girl along with her two classmates in the school toilet and confiscated their identity cards.

The victim committed suicide as she was scared that she would be required to tell her parents about the incident and bring them to the school.

Seeking relief in the case, the petitioner moved the Court, contending that she had merely admonished the student and taken her ID card per the usual disciplinary procedure in the school.

It was her counsel's further submission that she never had any intention to abet the suicide of the student and that she was merely performing her duties as a teacher to maintain discipline in the school. 

At the outset, the Court noted that at the stage of hearing a quashing plea, the court has to only consider the prosecution's material; it cannot delve into the defence of the accused and then proceed to examine the matter on its merit by weighing the evidence so produced.

Against this backdrop, the Court observed that a specific allegation had been levelled against the petitioner that she had allegedly abetted the suicide of a student.

Therefore, the Court concluded that the averments made in the petition that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are false and cannot be looked into while exercising powers under Section 528 of the BNSS. In view of this, the Court dismissed her petition.

Case title - Sister Mercy @ Elizabeth Jose (Devasiya) vs. State of Chhattisgarh

Case citation : 

Click Here To Read/Download Order