Blaming School Authorities For Student's Suicide Without Evidence Not Right, Parents Also Responsible To Monitor Child's Mental Health: Madras HC

The Madras High Court criticized the recent trend of parents implicating school authorities and teachers whenever a school student commits suicide. Justice SM Subramaniam noted that teachers and headmasters could be made liable only if there was sufficient evidence regarding their misconduct.

The court also noted that while it is easier to engage in blame-game, it is much difficult to maintain discipline in schools. Further, such general blaming would also negatively affect the students studying in the institution.

Whenever a case of suicide is found, the parents are not expected to blame the Teachers and Headmasters alone in the absence of any evidences. General blaming or causing dis-reputation would affect the image of the School and cause prejudice to the interest of the other children studying in the very same School. Causing dis-reputation may be an easy way out, but maintenance of discipline in Government Schools and achieving good results are difficult tasks. Therefore, the allegations if any are to be established beyond any pale of doubt through acceptable evidences. 

The court was hearing a plea by the mother of a 17 year old boy who had committed suicide. She alleged torture and harassment by the School Headmaster. It was alleged that the Headmaster used to cut the hair of the boys in public, tear the trousers of her son and other boys by using the blade and beat the children ruthlessly and abuse them using filthy language.

The petitioners relied on Section 17 of the Right to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 which prohibits any kind of physical or mental harassment to a child in a school. It contemplates disciplinary action against a person, who violates the provision.

The State denied all these allegations. It was submitted that the Headmaster only used to maintain discipline in the school which subsequently increased the pass percentage from 45% to 90% during his tenure. The enquiry conducted by the District Educational Officer, Chief Educational Officer and the police authorities revealed that the Headmaster had only worked hard to achieve better results. In this regard, other students, teachers and local police were examined who confirmed the same.

"Teachers and Headmasters are liable only if their misconduct, misbehaviour or otherwise are established through sufficient evidences. If any Teacher or Headmaster imposed a corporal punishment, which is prohibited by the Education Department guidelines, then alone the Teachers or Headmasters shall be prosecuted and not otherwise. For each and every act of students in a School, the Teacher or Headmaster cannot be blamed," Court said.

It was also informed that the boy was irregular in his studies and had failed to attend classes continuously. He was not interested in attending the school regularly.

The court was thus satisfied that the Headmaster had only worked for the betterment of the students by moulding them into good citizens. If such an effort was discouraged, the teachers would not be able to perform their duties with devotion. 

Such an effort if discouraged, then the Teachers and the Headmasters will not be in a position perform their duties with devotion. Such Headmasters, who maintain discipline and work hard to achieve better results are to be appreciated and their good works are to be recognised both by the parents and by the public at large.

In view of the enquiry reports, the court dismissed the petition observing that the Headmaster was not liable for prosecution.

Role Of Parents

The court also highlighted that the duties of parents co-exists with that of the teachers. The court noted that being the natural guardians, the role played by parents was pivotal and had great importance in shaping the lives of children. It said that parents are expected to be the "watchdog" regarding the activities of their own children, both inside the house and outside.

The court noted that in schools, the teachers were responsible for a number of students and thus would not be able to assess the mental health of every child. Thus, it was the duty of the parents to protect their child's mental health. For this, they had to create a good environment both inside and outside the house. 

Thus, the court noted that it was the duty of the parents as well as the teachers to ascertain the reasons and perform their respective duties as expected and create a conducive circumstances for providing better future to the children.

Case Title: K Kala v Secretary, Education Department and others

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 452

Case No: WP No 7429 of 2018

Counsel for the Petitioner: Ms.M.Sreela For Mr.R.Diwakaran

Counsel for the Respondents: Mrs.S.Mythreye Chandru Special Government Pleader, Mrs.P.Rajarajeswari Government Advocate, Dr.G.Babu, Mr.R.P.Murugan Raja Government Advocate