Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M.Subramaniam, J.
K.Kala - Petitioner
Versus
The Secretary, Educational Department, Secretariat, Fort St. George and ors. – Respondents
W.P.No.7429 of 2018 and W.M.P.No.9225 of 2018
Decided On : 03-11-2022
Mandamus - Right to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 - Section 17 - Summary of Acts and Sections: Right to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 - Section 17 - The court considered the allegations of physical and mental harassment by the school headmaster against the deceased student and the subsequent suicide. The court analyzed the reports from the District Education Officer, Chief Education Officer, and Police, which all found the headmaster not liable. The court emphasized the importance of establishing allegations beyond doubt and the duty of parents to monitor the well-being of their children. The court dismissed the writ petition, noting the lack of acceptable reasons for relief.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to initiate disciplinary action against the school headmaster and to obtain compensation for the suicide of her son, alleging physical and mental harassment by the headmaster.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the reports from education authorities and the police did not establish the headmaster's liability for the suicide of the deceased student. The court emphasized the duty of parents to monitor the well-being of their children and dismissed the writ petition due to the lack of acceptable reasons for relief.
Issues: Allegations of physical and mental harassment by the school headmaster, liability for the suicide of the deceased student, and the duty of parents to monitor the well-being of their children.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of establishing allegations beyond doubt, the duty of parents to monitor the well-being of their children, and the lack of acceptable reasons for relief in dismissing the writ petition.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and no costs were imposed.
ORDER :
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 3rd respondent to initiate disciplinary action against the 4th respondent and consequently direct the 1st and 2nd respondents to pay a sum of Rs.1000000 (Ten Lakhs) compensation to the petitioner.
The Writ of Mandamus has been filed to direct the 3rd respondent to initiate disciplinary action against the 4th respondent and consequently, direct the respondents 1 and 2 respondents to pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs) compensation to the writ petitioner.
2. The petitioner states that herself and her husband are daily wage workers and she has two daughters and one son. Her son Yuvaraj, aged about 17 years was studying in Gudalur Government Higher Secondary School in 12th Standard. Her son was tortured and harassed by the School Headmaster / 4th respondent. The 4th respondent used to cut the hair of the boys in public, tear the trousers of her son and other boys by using the blade and beat the children ruthlessly and abuse them using filthy language. The petitioner states that her son was also subjected to such ill-treatment and on account of such continuous behaviour of the 4th respondent, the son of the petitioner committed suicide.
3. The petitioner has narrated various incidents in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition to establish that the 4th respondent has harassed the students studying in the School. The other students informed the petitioner that the Headmaster used to humiliate all the children and kept torturing the children inside the School. In respect of the suicide of the son of the petitioner, the Police registered a case in Crime No.533 of 2017 on 30.08.2017 under Section 174 Cr.P.C.
4. The grievance of the petitioner was that the Police had not proceeded with the investigation. No enquiry was conducted properly. The 4th respondent continued his activities in the school. Thus, the petitioner is constrained to move the present writ petition.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that the 4th respondent has committed an act of violation of the Right to Life of the son of the petitioner, who had committed suicide. The Right of Children even under the United Nations Conventions on Right to Child (UNCRC) has to be protected and if the 4th respondent is allowed to continue such activities, it would cause irreparable loss to the students community and therefore, appropriate actions are to be initiated against the 4th respondent.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that Section 17 of the Right to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 prohibits any kind of physical or mental harassment to a child in a school. It contemplates disciplinary action against a person, who violates the provision. Despite the said rules, the 3rd respondent has not initiated any action against the 4th respondent. Thus, the writ petition is to be considered.
7. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the official respondents 1 and 3 objected the said contentions raised on behalf of the writ petitioner by stating that the allegations raised by the petitioner are verified with the 4th respondent / Headmaster and on enquiry, they found that the 4th respondent / Headmaster used to maintain discipline amongst the children in the School. If any child failed to cut their hair, he used to pay from his pocket and asked them to cut the hair. At the outset, enquiry revealed that the 4th respondent maintained discipline in the School and consequently, the pass percentage in the School was increased from 45% to 90% during his tenure as Headmaster. The authorities conducted an elaborate enquiry pursuant to the orders of the Director of School Education, Chennai. The enquiry report submitted by the District Educational Officer, Gudalur on 09.09.2017 revealed that the allegations raised by the petitioner are incorrect.
8. The learned Special Government Plead
The duty of parents to monitor the well-being of their children and the importance of establishing allegations beyond doubt.
The main legal point established is that in cases of alleged negligence on school premises, the burden of proof lies with the petitioner to establish prima facie negligence, and if negligence can be ....
The court determined that disciplinary proceedings must comply with statutory rules and natural justice principles, including proper charge framing and the issuance of a second show-cause notice.
The Court emphasized that it does not act as an appellate authority to re-appreciate the evidence and that the disciplinary authority is the sole judge of facts. The Court also highlighted that the s....
Termination of service without inquiry and prior approval violates statutory provisions and principles of natural justice.
The right to livelihood is a fundamental right under Article 21, and deprivation without due process is unlawful.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
