Mahendragarh School Bus Accident: School Needs To Take Responsibility For Lack Of Care; Can't Play Blame Game: P&H HC Rejects Director's Anticipatory Bail Plea

Observing that school cannot "play the blame game", the Punjab & Haryana High Court has refused to grant pre-arrest bail to the Director of a school whose bus met with an accident allegedly because the driver was drunk, in Haryana's Mahendergarh.

On April 11, in a dreadful accident, 6 students lost their lives and several were injured when the school bus driver, who was allegedly drunk, rammed the bus into a tree.

While noting that there was a "blatant lack of care" on the part of School director Justice Anoop Chitkara said, "Schools are established and administered, keeping the primary consideration of the welfare of children in mind, striving to cater to the constantly evolving needs of a growing child; within a safe, nurturing and supportive environment. Thus, when parents put their faith in a school establishment and entrust their child's safety to it, such a sensitive and immense responsibility needs to be taken solemnly, and should be approached with great caution, utmost seriousness and diligence. The school administrators cannot simply play the blame game, attributing faults to others and evade their fundamental, implicit/explicit duties, obligations and liabilities, under the guise of ignorance or negligence. A laxity of such massive proportion, that led to the loss of lives and limbs of so many children, cannot simply be ignored, looked past by or dismissed."

Such a harrowing incident is a profound loss for us all, with its devastating impact on families affected to be incalculable. These precious lives cannot be brought back and those affected would forever bear its physical, and mental scars, coping with the associated trauma of colossal magnitude and its bodily after-effects, added the Court.

Adding that it is the duty of us all and especially the legal justice system to ensure a fair and thorough investigation, Justice Chitkara said, "It is imperative to highlight, identify and hold accountable all those who were responsible in bringing about such a catastrophe, not only to serve justice but also to ensure that such a tragedy does not repeat itself due to mismanagement and negligence of authorities concerned, under our collective watch."

In the present case the appointment was done without cross-checking and adequately verifying the driver's dependency on alcohol or other intoxicants, and on the day of the unfortunate incident as well, no efforts were made to assess his sobriety prior to his assignment to drive the school bus, noted the Court.

Justice Chitkara was hearing the pre-arrest bail petition of the director of G.L. Public Samiti, Subhash Yadav who employed the accused driver in the school bus accident to drive the school bus for transporting students.

Due to the dereliction of duty and abject failure to ensure the safety of pupils, Yadav was apprehended in the FIR [ under Sections 109, 120-B, 279, 304, 336, 337 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and 185 and 192 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1954] lodged for culpable homicide and had approached the Court under Section 438 CrPC seeking anticipatory bail.

According to the prosecution, the documents required under the Motor Vehicles Act of the said bus had already expired, it had no insurance, and the bus was in a terrible condition. Knowing this, the petitioner and co-accused were not bothered either to validate the documents to take insurance or to replace the old, outdated bus with a modern road-worthy bus possessing the certificate of fitness and insurance certificate, fit enough to absorb the impact of a potential crash.

The counsel for the Haryana Government submitted that on the fateful day, a bike rider named Arun on the road apprehended that the bus driver was under the influence of alcohol. Therefore, he called the school administration to complain, and the Director instead of asking the driver to stop there, told Arun that they would take care once he was back and asked the driver to come to school with the children.

After hearing the submissions and considering the material on record, the Court noted that "apparently to cut down the costs, the owners and their sycophants employed a driver on a low wage of IN 9,000/-per month. It is probably because that no skilled driver would drive the bus for such a low wage, the driver Dharmendra, who was an alcoholic, willing to do such a job, was employed with no regard to his addiction."

The school management, of which the petitioner is a part, employed Dharmender, driver on a monthly salary of Rs. 9000 without basic fact-checking about his addiction to alcohol and intoxicants. "Their prime aim was not to put the safety of children first, ensuring a comfortable and safe ride for the school students but to save money on salary," it added.

Verifying School Driver's Criminal Antecedents Before Recruitment Is Of Utmost Importance

The Court noted that, even on the ill-fated day, neither the petitioner nor any responsible officer of the school management before sending the driver on his assignment cared to check "whether the driver was in a coherent mental state and sober."

"Before recruiting a driver for a school bus, it is of utmost importance to verify the driver's criminal antecedents and also to ensure that the driver is a safe and decent member of society, is not substance dependent, is not a thug, and is soft-spoken, considerate, decent, and very well-behaved," it observed.

It is the least expected of the management of every school, and it is a constitutional obligation of the Executive not only to cross-check such credentials but also to validate the character of every school bus driver to ensure that school children are not at the mercy of perverts and addicts and to keep an eye on the standard of fitness requisite to such buses, the bench added.

The judge highlighted that the investigation had gathered sufficient evidence, which prima facie sets up that on the unfortunate day of April 11, Dharmender, who was deputed to drive the bus, had taken alcohol in the morning itself, leading to the loss of six bright lives and severe injuries to many more students, which in turn devastated the families and lives of the injured.

Justice Chitkara observed that children are the lifeblood and essence of any family, community and society. In families they shape the lives of their loved ones for the better, imparting a sense of purpose, bringing joy, love and strengthening the relationships. In communities and society, they are the very foundation of the future, embodying hope, representing possibilities and bringing dynamism, vitality essential for growth and betterment.

"They represent the culmination of their parent's blood, sweat, tears and aspirations, and it is impossible to find adjectives that fully capture the profound impact and significance children have in the lives and hearts of their family members and communities. Children are our today and our tomorrow," added the judge.

While noting that the State sought custodial interrogation of the petitioner to ascertain the prior interactions and engagement of school management and petitioner with the driver specifically regarding his alcoholism and on how many occasions there were signs of alcohol intoxication, the Court rejected the plea.

In the light of the severe allegations and "blatant lack of care", the Court said, "evidence can only be collected when the petitioner is subjected to custodial interrogation."

Consequently, the petition was dismissed.

Title: Subhash Yadav v. State of Haryana

2024 LiveLaw (PH) 187

Click here to read/download the order