Subjecting Child To Corporal Punishment Can’t Be Part Of Education: Chhattisgarh HC Refuses To Quash Case Against Female Teacher
The Chhattisgarh High Court refused to quash case against a female teacher and observed that subjecting the child to corporal punishment for reforming him/her cannot be part of education.
The Court was dealing with a petition filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) by the teacher accused of abetment of suicide.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal remarked, “It also appears to us that corporal punishment is not keeping with child’s dignity. Besides, it is cruel to subject the child to physical violence in school in the name of discipline or education. Child being a precious national resource is to be nurtured and attended with tenderness and care and not with cruelty. Subjecting the child to corporal punishment for reforming him cannot be part of education.”
The Bench said that the fundamental rights are available to the child and he cannot be deprived of the same just because he is small. It added that being small does not make him a less human being than a grown up.
Advocates Devershi Thakur and Rajat Agrawal appeared on behalf of the petitioner/accused while Advocate (Panel Lawyer) Kanwaljeet Singh Saini appeared on behalf of the respondent/State.
In this case, the counsel for the petitioner/accused submitted that the accused was a Christian ‘Nun’ working as a regular teacher in a Convent school. An FIR was lodged whereby she was accused of allegedly abetting the suicide of a student of Class VI. It was also submitted that she moved an application for grant of regular bail before the High Court and the Court granted the same to her by looking to the allegation as mentioned in the suicidal note and statement of accompanying friend of deceased.
It was further submitted that there had never been any complaint against the deceased student and neither had the student or parents of the student made any complaint of any misbehaviour or harassment meted out to the student in the school to the school management at any point of time, until her demise. Therefore, the accused approached the High Court seeking quashment of FIR against her.
The High Court after hearing the contentions of the counsel noted, “It is trite law that at the stage of quashing, only the material of the prosecution has to be seen and the Court cannot delve into the defence of the accused and then proceed to examine the matter on its merit by weighing the evidence so produced. The disputed questions of facts in the case cannot be adjudged and adjudicated at this stage while exercising powers under Section 528 of the BNSS and only the prima facie prosecution case has to be looked into as it is. Evidence needs to be led to substantiate the defence of the accused.”
The Court observed that the imposition of corporal punishment on the child is not in consonance with his Right to Life guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution being construed by the Courts widely and on a larger canvass, right to life includes all that which gives meaning to life and makes it wholesome and worth living.
“It means something more than survival or animal existence. Right to life enshrined in Article 21 also embraces any aspect of life which makes it dignified. Article 21 in its expanded horizon confers medley of rights on the person including the following rights:- (1) A life of dignity (2) A life which ensures freedom from arbitrary and despotic control, torture and terror (3) Life protected against cruelty, physical or mental violence, injury or abuse, exploitation including sexual abuse”, it emphasised.
Furthermore, the Court elucidated that freedom of life and liberty guaranteed by Article 21 is not only violated when physical punishment scars the body, but that freedom is also violated when it scars the mind of the child and robs him of his dignity and any act of violence which traumatises, terrorises a child, or adversely affects his faculties, falls foul of Article 21 of the Constitution.
“The signatory state is also obliged to protect the dignity of the child. … In the instant case, specific allegation against the petitioner that she has been accused of allegedly abetting the suicide of a student, namely, Archisha Sinha, of class 6th of Carmel Convent School, where she is working as a regular teacher, therefore, at this stage, averments made in the petition that the allegations levelled against petitioner is false, cannot be looked into while exercising powers under Section 528 of the BNSS and the judgment relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner is distinguishable from the present case”, it concluded.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the petition and refused to quash FIR against the accused.
Cause Title- Sister Mercy @ Elizabeth Jose (Devasiya) v. State of Chhattisgarh (Neutral Citation: 2024:CGHC:27628-DB)
