Reasonable use of cane by teacher to discipline students not offence: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court recently held that a cane used by a teacher for disciplining students cannot be treated as a dangerous weapon under Section 118 (voluntarily causing hurt or grievous hurt by dangerous weapon or means) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). [Sibin SV v State of Kerala & anr]

Justice C Pratheep Kumar made the observation while quashing criminal proceedings against a school teacher accused of beating a student with a cane.

The judge emphasised that teachers have implied authority to administer reasonable corporal punishment in good faith provided there is no malafide intention to hurt the student.

"From the above decisions it is clear that the school teacher, in view of his peculiar position, has authority to enforce discipline and correct a pupil, who is put in his charge. When a parent entrusts a child to a teacher, he on his behalf impliedly consents for the teacher to exercise over the student such authority. When a student does not behave properly or act according to the rules of a school, and if the teacher gives him a corporal punishment for improving his character and conduct, the court has to ascertain whether the said act of the teacher was bona fide or not. If it is found that he had acted with a good intention, only to improve or correct the student, he is within his limits," the Court held.

The accused, a 36-year-old teacher at a school in Vengaloor, was booked under Section 118(1) of BNS and Section 75 (punishment for cruelty to child) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children)Act (JJ Act) act.

The prosecution alleged that on February 10, 2025, the teacher beat the student with a cane on the buttocks inside the staff room.

After examining the materials on record, the Court noted that although the alleged incident occurred on February 10, 2025, the First Information Report (FIR) was registered only on February 13.

The medical records showed that the child was taken to Community Health Centre in Vizhinjam on the same day with a complaint of pain over the buttocks. However, the wound certificate recorded that no external injuries were detected by the doctor.

The issue before the Court was whether the alleged act by the teacher would attract the provisions of BNS and JJ act.

After referring to the statutory provisions, the Court clarified that to attract the offence under Section 118 (1) of the BNS, the weapon or methods used must be inherently dangerous.

But in the instant case, it held that the use of a cane would not fall within the scope of the provision and therefore, the offence under Section 118 (1) was not made out.

The Court then considered Section 75 of the JJ Act which penalised cruelty to children and, relying on earlier precedents including Jomi v State of Kerala, reiterated that teachers occupy a peculiar position of trust and authority.

It stated that when parents entrust their kids to schools, there is an implied consent for teachers to exercise reasonable disciplinary control including limited corporal punishment, provided its administered in good faith and without any wrongful intention of causing harm.

"From the evidence available on record, it appears that the petitioner has only used minimum corporal punishment for enforcing discipline in the school and there is no evidence to show that he had any guilty intention to cause any hurt to the defacto complainant or to treat the defacto complainant with cruelty. In the above circumstances, no useful purpose will be served in continuing the proceedings against the petitioner," the Court ruled.

Thus, the Court concluded that continuing the prosecution against the teacher would amount to an abuse of the process of law since there was no evidence to suggest that the teacher acted with malafide intention.

Hence, the Court quashed all further proceedings against the teacher in the sessions case pending before the Additional Sessions Court (Atrocities & Sexual violence against Women and Children) at Thiruvananthapuram.

The petitioner was represented by advocates MR Sarin, PS Santhoshkumar (Karumkulam), Parvathi Krishna, Aji S and Midhun Soman.

The State was represented by senior public prosecutor Breez MS.

[Read Order]