Teachers Liable Under Juvenile Justice Act For Assaulting Children But Mere Corrective Measures To Enforce Discipline Not Punishable: Kerala HC
Tellmy Jolly
3 July 2024 12:12 PM GMT
The Kerala High Court has held that teachers cannot be prosecuted under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 for using simple corrective measures for enforcing discipline in schools.
Justice A. Badharudeen thus quashed the proceedings initiated against the petitioner under Section 82 (corporal punishment) of the JJ Act and Section 324 (voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means) of the IPC.
“If teachers being roped into under the provisions of the JJ Act for devicing simple and least onerous corrective measures to keep the discipline of the School or the Educational Institution the discipline of the School or the Institution would be in peril. At the same time, when the teacher exceeds his authority beyond the limit and causes serious injuries or physical assault of similar nature definitely the penal provisions of JJ Act would squarely apply.”
In this case, the petitioner who is a teacher and Principal of a school allegedly punished a 13-year-old eighth standard student for securing less marks.
The Counsel for the petitioner submitted that corporal punishment imposed by any person in-charge of or employed in a child care institution for disciplining a child would attract an offence under Section 82 of the JJ Act. It was argued that school was not a child care institution under Section 2(21) of the Act and thus petitioner cannot be made liable under Section 82 of the Act.
The Counsel for petitioner further submitted that even offence under Section 75 of the JJ Act would not make teachers liable for imposing lesser punishment with bonafide intent on children to discipline them based on the implied authority given by the parents. Section 75 provides for punishment, if any person having control of child, assaults, abandons, abuses or willfully neglects the child. It was argued that offence under Section 342 of the IPC would not be attracted as well. The Counsel also relied upon the decisions in K.A. Abdul Vahid v. State of Kerala (2005) and Rajan @ Raju, S/o.Choyi v. The Sub Inspector of Police, Feroke Police Station and others (2019).
Relying upon K.A. Abdul Vahid (supra), the Court noted that teachers of schools or madrassa get an implied authority from parents to discipline and correct children who commit mistakes. In that case, the Court stated that if children are given corporal punishments by them to maintain discipline in school and for child's growth and development it should not be considered as an intention to harm the student. Therein, the Court stated that the act of teacher imposing punishment upon student must depend upon the facts of each case and there cannot be a generalized pattern.
The Court further relied upon Rajan @ Raju (supra) wherein it was stated that nature of injury inflicted by teacher upon the student would determine as to whether he can be proceeded under penal provisions or not. The Court stated that acts of teacher cannot be condoned if they inflict injury on a child out unbridled fury, excitement or rage, inflicts injuries causing unreasonable physical injury or harm.
In this case, the Court stated that the child was beaten by the petitioner for securing less marks and that the child sustained no injuries. The Court thus stated that the petitioner had no malafide intention for beating the child since his intent was to alert and guide the child to study well.
Section 82 of JJ Act Would Not Attract Since School Is Not A Child Care Institution
The Court stated that school was not a child care institution under 2 (21) of the Act and thus held that Section 82 of the Act would not be attracted. It stated that Section 82 of the Act that provides punishment for imposition of corporal punishment upon children would apply to child care institutions and not schools.
“As per Section 2(21) of the JJ Act, Child Care Institution is defined as “Children's Home, Open Shelter, Observation Home, Special Home, Place of Safety, Specialised Adoption Agency (SAA) and a Fit Facility recognised under this Act for providing care and protection to children, who are in need of such services. Since Section 2(21) of the JJ Act does not include a school, it could not be held that Section 82 of the JJ Act would attract in the present case since offence under Section 82 of the JJ Act would apply specifically to child care institution dealt under Section 2(21) of the JJ Act”, added the Court.
The Court further observed that Section 324 of the IPC would not be attracted since there was no finding that the petitioner was beating the child with malafide intent to cause injury.
Accordingly, the Court quashed the proceedings against the petitioner.
Counsel for Petitioner: Advocate Shibu Varghese
Counsel for Respondents: Senior Public Prosecutor Renjit George, Advocate K N Govindankutty Menon
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 407
Case Title: Jomi v State of Kerala
Case Number: CRL.MC NO. 6506 OF 2019
