Kerala High Court: A Teacher is disentitled to Inflict Corporal Punishment on Child; It should be expressly declared in penal statute to Constitute Offence

14/07/2025

Kerala, Jul 13: The Kerala High Court observed that a teacher is disentitled to inflict corporal punishment on a child and the same should be expressly declared in a penal statute to constitute an offence.
The Court observed thus in three Criminal Miscella-neous Cases in which the subject matter was the teacher caning a student in order to discipline him/her.
A Single Bench of Justice C. Jayachandran elucidated, "… in the light of the Child Rights Convention, the legislations enacted/amended under its inspirational impact, namely the J.J Act and the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act etc., and especially in the light of Section 17 of latter enactment, it is only logical to conclude that a teacher is disentitled to inflict corporal punishment on a child. Nevertheless, in order to constitute an offence out of the conduct of inflicting corporal punishment, the same should have been expressly declared as an offence in the penal statute concerned."
The Bench clarified that it is not voting in favour of the teachers inflicting punishment on children, even if it be to discipline or reform them and that the said conduct going by the penal statutes concerned, as it stands now, is incapable of constituting an offence.
Advocates P. Jinish Paul, P.M. Abdul Jaleel, and T.N. Suresh represented the Peti-tioners while Senior Public Prosecutor (SPP) C.N. Prab-hakaran represented the Respondents. Advocate Jacob P. Alex was appointed as the Amicus Curiae.
Factual Background
In the first case, the Petitioner/accused sought to quash the FIR against her. The prosecution alleged that she had caned the victim aged 9 years due to his poor performance in the dictation conducted by her. Besides that, she allegedly published his mark list with zero marks in the WhatsApp group, causing physical & mental agony to the victim, thus committing the offences under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 (JJ Act).
In the second case, the prosecution alleged that the accused caned a student aged 6 years for not being attentive in the class, thus committing the offences under Section 118(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) and also under Section 75 of the JJ Act. In the third case, the prosecution alleged that the accused had beaten the victim aged 9 years using a P.V.C. pipe rep-eatedly on her thighs, during the dance practice session in connection with the Annual Day celebrations, thus commi-tting the offences under Section 324 of the IPC and Section 75 of the JJ Act.
Court's Observations
The High Court after hearing the contentions of the counsel, noted, "As it is clear from Section 17(2), the contravention would only attract disciplinary action under the service rules. Therefore, Section 17 cannot be pressed into service to canvass that an offence has been committed.
This Court also takes into account the Guidelines for eliminating Corporal Punis-hment in Schools issued by the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR)."
With respect to the third case, the Court said that the accused being the temporary dance teacher had beaten the victim child for the reason that she committed mistakes during dance practice so as to cause pain and mental trauma to the child, thus committing the offences.
"I cannot therefore set and subscribe my hands to the proverb 'Spare the rod, Spoil the child'. By holding as above, this Court is not saving/ excluding a case where any co-rporal punishment is inflicted on any vital part of the body of the child. Nor is the above discussion intended to save sadistic tendencies, if any, exhibited by the teachers, in the matter of infliction of punishment. Those are exceptional situations capable of constituting an offence, which are to be dealt with appropriately, as per law", also remarked the Court.
The Court, however, noted that firstly, the person, who had beaten the child is not a regular teacher, but only someone, who used to be invited for training the students for dance performance in connection with the annual day celebrations of the school, wherefore it is doubtful whether the concept of inflicting reasonable punishment for disciplining or refreshing the child can be pressed into service.
"Secondly, the instrume-nt used for inflicting punishment is not a cane; but a PVC pipe, which is used to augment rhythm to the dance. … Out of the above parameters, the present facts will fall within the one, where it is stipulated that the punishment should not have been inflicted with an instrument unfit for the purpose", it added.
The Court observed that the investigation in the instant crime reveals beating of a child by using a PVC pipe, that too by a person, who is invited only during the school annual day, for training students for dance and the same cannot be readily inferred as an act for disciplining or reforming the child, from the available records, in the absence of evidence.
"In such circumstances, the relief sought for in the Crl.M.C, namely, to quash the crime in question cannot be allowed. Nevertheless, this Court notice that the offences canvassed in the subject crime, that is, Section 324 of the Penal Code and Section 75 of the J.J Act cannot be sustained for reasons already adverted to, while discussing the two other Criminal Miscellaneous Cases", it further said.
The Court was of the opinion that PVC pipe is not a weapon which is likely to cause death when used as a weapon of offence and therefore, the offence under Section 324 cannot be sustained.
"For the same set of reasons as discussed in detail, the offence under Section 75 of the J.J Act also cannot be sustained. However, this Court notice that the offence under Section 323, as originally canvassed in the F.I.R, is prima facie sustainable. In the circumstances, the offences canvassed in the final report, namely, the one under Section 324 of the Penal Code, and also, under Section 75 of the J.J Act are hereby quashed", it ordered.
Conclusion
The Court, however, clarified that it will be open for the Investigating Officer to file a fresh final report, or for that matter, incorporate necessary changes in the present final report so as to alter the offence as one under Section 323 of the IPC and to proceed with the matter in accordance with law.
"It is clarified that this Court has not entered into the merits of the matter and the trial court will proceed with the trial of the case, untrammeled by any of the observations made in this Order. The punishment, if any, will only be based on independent of analysis of the evidence adduced", it concluded.
Accordingly, the High Court quashed the FIR and disposed of the cases.

Photo Gallery

BSE Sensex

NSE Nifty