Teachers administering moderate force on students without malicious intent can't be penalised: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court recently held that a teacher who administers moderate and reasonable force to a pupil without malicious intent, to enforce discipline, cannot be criminally prosecuted or penalised [Jaya v State of Kerala & Ors.]..Justice Kauser Edappagath opined that parents, teachers and other persons in loco parentis are entitled, as a disciplinary measure, to apply a reasonable degree of force to their children or pupil old enough to understand the purpose to which the act was done."Hurt of a less serious crime is not forbidden when inflicted in the reasonable chastisement of a child by a parent or by a school teacher to whom the parent has delegated or is deemed to have delegated his authority. But, if the punishment imposed is given out of spite or for some other non disciplinary reason or if the force is unreasonable or immoderate, it is unlawful. Classroom discipline is very important for effective teaching and learning. Thus, a teacher who without malicious intention administers a moderate and reasonable force to a pupil to enforce discipline in class room/school cannot be exposed to criminal prosecution or fastened with penal liability," the Court said in its judgment..The Court's judgement came on a revision petition filed by a former teacher of DDS High School, Karimbadam, Paravur, against the decision of a trial court to not discharge her for offences offences punishable under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 23 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (JJ Act). The de-facto complainant was her student and his father was an additional respondent in the case against her.The case of the prosecution was that the teacher, due to enmity towards her student for the delay in taking out textbook and with the intention to cause hurt, attempted to beat him with a cane on the top of his right elbow, but when he suddenly turned his face up, the butt of the cane touched his right eye corneal causing abrasion.The Court below opined that there was ground for presuming that the revision petitioner has committed the offence and accordingly framed charges against her. This prompted her to approach the High Court through advocates TK Sasindran and TS Shyam Prasanth who contended that the records would reveal that the prosecution allegations, even if admitted as true in its entirety, would not make out the offences that the petitioner was charged with.Moreover, they stated that there was no intention to cause any hurt but that she had merely tried to grab her student's attention to the class by tapping his elbow in good faith, for his benefit.This was countered by the Public Prosecutor Sangeetha Raj and advocate KI Sageer appearing for the respondent student and his father..The Court, after going through the records, sequence of events, medical reports and witness statements found favour with the revision petitioner's contentions. It opined that the offence of 'voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means' under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code would not be attracted as the cane used was an ordinary one, and there seemed to be no intention to cause any hurt.The Court recalled that in Amal & Anr v State of Kerala & Anr, it had held that it is not the scheme and spirit of Section 23 of the JJ Act that every doing of an act by person in charge or control of the juvenile that affects the body and mind of the child would constitute an offence punishable under the said Section, despite it lacking criminal intention..The Court recognised that under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, corporal punishment is violative of the right of the child to education as well as the right to life with dignity. However, in Prameela Fergod v. State of Kerala as well, the Court had taken the view that the nature and gravity of the corporal punishment inflicted by the teacher would determine as to whether he/she can be prosecuted under the penal provisions..In the instant case, the Court observed that the facts disclosed that she exercised her authority reasonably and in good faith. Therefore, it allowed the revision petition and discharged the teacher. .[Read Judgment]