No Punishment for Corrective Measure to Enforce Discipline

Source: Kerala High Court 

Why in News?

Recently, the Kerala High Court in the matter of Jomi v. State of Kerala has held that as per the provisions of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (JJ Act) teachers cannot be prosecuted for using simple corrective measures for enforcing discipline in schools. 

What was the Background of Jomi v. State of Kerala Case?  

• In this case, a petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) seeking quashment of Annexure C Final Report in Crime No.690/2018 of Kodanadu Police Station, which is now pending on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Perumbavoor against him. 
• The sum and substance of the prosecution allegation is that the victim aged 13 years, who was studying in 8th Standard was beaten by the accused, when she secured less marks in a test paper conducted by the accused, who is the English Teacher and the Principal of St.Joseph School, Thottuva, where the minor girl was studying.  
• Recording the statement of the victim, crime was registered alleging commission of offence punishable under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) as well as Section 82 of the JJ Act.  
• The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the offence under Section 82 of the JJ Act would not attract in the present case, since Section 82 deals with corporal punishment imposed by any person in-charge of or employed in a childcare institution, who subjects a child to corporal punishment with the aim of disciplining the child.  
• The Counsel for petitioner further submitted that even offence under Section 75 of the JJ Act would not make teachers liable for imposing lesser punishment with bonafide intent on children to discipline them based on the implied authority given by the parents.   
• The High Court allowed the petition Annexure C Final Report in Crime No.690/2018 of Kodanadu Police Station, which is pending on the files of the Judicial First-Class Magistrate Court-III, Perumbavoor was quashed.  

What were the Court’s Observations? 

Observation: 

• Justice A. Badharudeen observed that if teachers being roped into under the provisions of the JJ Act for devicing simple and least onerous corrective measures to keep the discipline of the School or the Educational Institution the discipline of the School or the Institution would be in peril. At the same time, when the teacher exceeds his authority beyond the limit and causes serious injuries or physical assault of similar nature definitely the penal provisions of JJ Act would squarely apply. 

Cases Referred by the High Court in this Case: 

• K.A. Abdul Vahid v. State of Kerala (2005):  
  • In this case, it was observed that when a child is sent to Madrassa or a school, the parents of the said child give an implied authority to the master or the class teacher or Headmaster/Headmistress to enforce discipline and correct the students who commit errors in front of him or her or in the classes.  
  • If a corporal punishment is given by any of them, in the process of maintaining such discipline, and also to make him/her adhere to the prescribed standards of the school, which are necessary for the upliftment and development of the child, including the development of his character and conduct in and outside the school, so that he is trained to be aware of the good qualities of a citizen, it cannot be said to be an act intended to injure the student. 
• Rajan @ Raju, S/o.Choyi v. The Sub Inspector of Police, Feroke Police Station and Ors. (2019): 
  • In this case, it was stated that the nature of injury inflicted by teacher upon the student would determine as to whether he can be proceeded under penal provisions or not.  
  • The Court stated that acts of teacher cannot be condoned if they inflict injury on a child out unbridled fury, excitement or rage, inflicts injuries causing unreasonable physical injury or harm. 

What are the Relevant Legal Provisions Involved in it?  

Section 82 of JJ Act: 

• This Section deals with Corporal punishment. It states that— 

(1) Any person in-charge of or employed in a child care institution, who subjects a child to corporal punishment with the aim of disciplining the child, shall be liable, on the first conviction, to a fine of ten thousand rupees and for every subsequent offence, shall be liable for imprisonment which may extend to three months or fine or with both.  

(2) If a person employed in an institution referred to in sub-section (1), is convicted of an offence under that sub-section, such person shall also be liable for dismissal from service and shall also be debarred from working directly with children thereafter.  

(3) In case, where any corporal punishment is reported in an institution referred to in sub-section (1) and the management of such institution does not cooperate with any inquiry or comply with the orders of the Committee or the Board or court or State Government, the person in-charge of the management of the institution shall be liable for punishment with imprisonment for a term not less than three years and shall also be liable to fine which may extend to one lakh rupees. 

Section 75 of JJ Act: 

• This Section deals with the punishment for cruelty to child. It states that— 

Whoever, having the actual charge of, or control over, a child, assaults, abandons, abuses, exposes or wilfully neglects the child or causes or procures the child to be assaulted, abandoned, abused, exposed or neglected in a manner likely to cause such child unnecessary mental or physical suffering, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years or with fine of one lakh rupees or with both.  

Provided that in case it is found that such abandonment of the child by the biological parents is due to circumstances beyond their control, it shall be presumed that such abandonment is not willful and the penal provisions of this section shall not apply in such cases.  

Provided further that if such offence is committed by any person employed by or managing an organization, which is entrusted with the care and protection of the child, he shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment which may extend up to five years, and fine which may extend up to five lakhs rupees.  

Provided also that on account of the aforesaid cruelty, if the child is physically incapacitated or develops a mental illness or is rendered mentally unfit to perform regular tasks or has risk to life or limb, such person shall be punishable with rigorous imprisonment, not less than three years but which may be extended up to ten years and shall also be liable to fine of five lakhs rupees. 

What is Section 324 of IPC? 

• Section 324 of IPC deals with voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means.  
• It states that whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt by means of any instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting, or any instrument which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, or by means of fire or any heated substance, or by means of any poison or any corrosive substance, or by means of any explosive substance or by means of any substance which it is deleterious to the human body to inhale, to swallow, or to receive into the blood, or by means of any animal, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.