High Court Of Delhi
PARENTS FORUM FOR MEANINGFUL EDUCATION - Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA - Respondent
Civil Writ 196 of 1998
Decided On : 12/01/2000
Corporal Punishment - Challenge to Rule 37 of Delhi School Education Rules, 1973 - Articles 14, 21, 39 (e) and (f) of the Constitution, Convention on the Rights of the Child, National Policy on Education - [ARTICLES 19, 29, 37, 39, 40]
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged the vires of Rule 37 of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973, seeking to ban corporal punishment in schools. The respondents justified the provision, arguing that it is meant to inculcate discipline in the child.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that corporal punishment is inhumane and not in line with the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the National Policy on Education. It held that the imposition of corporal punishment violates the child's right to life guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution.
Issues: The issues revolved around the legality and constitutionality of Rule 37 of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973, particularly regarding the infliction of corporal punishment on students.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the imposition of corporal punishment on children is not in line with their right to life and dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution. It also emphasized the need to protect children from all forms of physical or mental violence, in line with the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
Final Decision: The court struck down Rule 37 (1) (a) (ii) and (4) of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973, as violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. It directed the State to ensure that children are not subjected to corporal punishment in schools and receive education in an environment of freedom and dignity, free from fear.
( 1 ) THIS is a writ petition whereby the petitioners challenge the vires of Rule 37 of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973 (for short the Rules ) more particularly sub- rules (1) (a) (ii), l (b) (ii) and (iii) and (4) (a) to (e) thereof.
( 2 ) THE first petitioner is a parents forum which is registered under the Societies Registration Act XXI of 1860. The second petitioner Smt. Kusum Jain is its President. The petitioners have moved this writ petition by way of public interest litigation seek- ing inter alia banning of corporal punishment to students in schools. Though in the , petition the petitioners also challenges sub-rule (l) (b) and l (iii) of Rule 37 of the Rules, which provide for expulsion and rustication of a student from school, at the time of hearing, however, the learned counsel for the petitioners only advanced arguments relating to the vires of the provisions dealing with corporal punishment. At this stage it will be convenient to set out Rule 37 which reads as under:-
"rule 37. Forms of disciplinary measures- (1) The following shall be the disciplinary measures which may be adopted by a school in dealing with - (a) all students - (i) detention during the break, for neglect of class work, but no detention shall be made after the school hours, 458 (ii) corporal punishment. (b) Students who have attained the age of fourteen years - (i) fine, (ii) expulsion, (iii) rustication, (2) For the avoidance of doubts, it is hereby declared that the disciplinary measures specified in clause (b) of sub-rule (1) shall not be imposed on any student who has not attained the age of fourteen years. (3) Fine may be imposed on a student who has attained the age of fourteen years in the following cases, namely: (i) late attendance; (ii) absence from class without proper application from the parent or guardian; (iii) truancy; (iv) wilful damage to school property; (v) delay in payment of school fees and dues; (4) (a) Corporal punishment may be given by the head of the school in cases of persisting impertinence or rude behaviour towards the teachers, physical violence, intemperance and serious form of misbehaviour with other students. (b) Corporal punishment shall not be inflicted on the students who are in ill-health. (c) Where corporal punishment is imposed, it shall not be severe or excessive and shall be so administered as not to cause bodily injury. (d) Where cane in used for inflicting any corporal punishment, such punishment shall take the form of strokes not exceeding ten, on the palm of the hand. (e) Every punishment inflicted on a student shall be recorded in the Conduct Register of such student. (5) Expulsion shall debar a student from being re-admitted to the school from where he is expelled but shall not preclude his admission with the previous sanction of the Director to any other school. (6) Where a student is rusticated, he shall not be admitted to any school till the expiry of the period of rustication. (7) No student shall be expelled or rusticated from a school except after giving the parent or guardian of the students a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the proposed action. Notes: (i) Expulsion or rustication shall be resorted to only in cases of grave offences where the retention of the student in the school is likely to endanger its moral tone of discipline. (ii) Except in the case of any expulsion or rustication from an unaided minority school, the punishments of expulsion and rustication shall not be imposed without the prior approval of the Director. "
( 3 ) THE above Rule inter alia provides that corporal punishment to a student may be administered by the Head of School in the event of continuous impertinence or rude behaviour by the student towards the teachers and in case he indulges in physical violence, intemperance and serious form of misbehaviour with other students. Where cane is used for inflicting corporal punishment, it imposes a limit of ten Strokes on the hand of the
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.