School Uniform Policy Not 'Cruelty' Under JJ Act: Kerala HC Quashes Criminal Case Against School Principal

The Kerala High Court recently quashed a criminal case against the principal of Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan School, Thrissur, clarifying that enforcing a school uniform policy does not amount to "cruelty against children" under Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (JJ Act).

The Single-Bench of Justice A Badharudeen delivered the judgment, emphasizing that the requirement for students to wear uniforms is a standard disciplinary measure, not an act causing mental or physical suffering.

"When a teacher insists for wearing uniform, on seeing a student, who reached the school in colour dress, the same is intended for the purpose of maintaining the discipline of the school in the matter of uniform dress code, and the same, in no way, could be held as as an act, which would cause unnecessary mental or physical suffering to the child, so as to attract the offence under Section 75 of the JJ Act," the Court observed.

The case arose when an eighth-grade student visited the school during vacation to collect her academic results and purchase books. The student, dressed in casual attire instead of her school uniform, was reprimanded by the principal, who commented on her appearance and sent her home to change into her uniform. Following this, a criminal case was filed against the principal under Section 75 of the JJ Act, alleging cruelty toward the child.

Section 75 of the JJ Act deals with acts of cruelty that cause unnecessary mental or physical suffering to children. However, the Court made it clear that enforcing a uniform dress code does not fall within the scope of this provision.

The principal, through her counsel, argued that the complaint was filed in retaliation. The student's mother, who worked at the same school, had recently been issued a memo regarding her negligence during examination duties, which allegedly prompted the filing of the complaint. The principal further contended that no prima facie case of cruelty had been made against her and that the disciplinary action taken regarding the uniform was a routine practice in schools.

The Court, after reviewing the records, agreed with the principal’s argument, ruling that no prima facie case of cruelty was made out. It emphasized that interpreting routine disciplinary actions such as enforcing a uniform policy as cruelty under the JJ Act could have adverse consequences on the overall functioning and discipline of schools.

The Single-Judge warned that misinterpreting such disciplinary measures could "disdainfully affect the discipline and the regiment of the school.

The Bench said, "If, as part of maintenance of the discipline of the school when wearing of uniform dress is made mandatory, it is the duty of the students to obey the same, so as to keep the dignity and discipline of the school to impart education effectively. If such acts are given the colour of an offence under Section 75 of the JJ Act, the discipline of the school would become topsy-turvy and the same would disdainfully affect the discipline and the regiment of the school. Therefore, such disciplinary measures cannot be ushered into the purview of Section 75 of the JJ Act. In such view of the matter, the case at hand would require quashment, as offence under Section 75 of the JJ Act, is not made out, prima facie."

Conclusively, the Court ruled in favour of the principal, quashing the case and affirming that enforcing a uniform policy does not constitute cruelty under the JJ Act. "In the result, this Crl.M.C. stands allowed. Annexure 8 Final Report and all further proceedings in C.C.No.347/2022 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Wadakkanchery, arising out of Crime No.1328/2021 of Wadakkanchery Police Station, Thrissur, against the petitioner herein, stand quashed," the Court ordered.

Cause Title: ABC v. State of Kerala & Ors.[Neutral Citation No. 2024:KER:74290]

Appearance:-

Petitioner: Senior Advocate P Vijaya Bhanu, Advocates KR Arun Krishnan, PM Rafiq, M Revikrishnan, Ajeesh K Sasi, Mitha Sudhindran, Sruthy KK, Sruthy N Bhat, Rahul Sunil

Respondent: Senior Public Prosecutor Renjit George, Advocate KR Arun Krishnan

Click here to read/download the Judgment