Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(KER) 39205
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
JOSE MATHEW – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
Crl.MC 645/2019
M.R.SUDHEENDRAN
The court ruled that reasonable disciplinary actions by teachers do not constitute an offence under Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice Act.
Headnote:(A) Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 - Section 75 - Quashing of proceedings for alleged offence against school authorities - Allegations of corporal punishment and derogatory remarks made against a student - Court found that no offence was made out under Section 75, emphasizing that reasonable disciplinary actions do not attract penal provisions. (Paras 2, 8, 10, 11)
(B) The court reiterated that implied consent exists when parents send children to school, allowing teachers to maintain discipline, provided actions do not cause unreasonable harm. (Paras 8, 10)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners, a Principal and a Teacher, were accused of threatening a student and making derogatory remarks, which were alleged to constitute an offence under the JJ Act.
Findings of Court:
The court concluded that the allegations did not amount to an offence under Section 75 of the JJ Act, allowing the quashing of proceedings.
Issues: Whether the actions of the petitioners constituted an offence under Section 75 of the JJ Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that actions taken by teachers must be reasonable and within the bounds of discipline, and that the alleged remarks did not meet the threshold for criminal liability under the JJ Act.
Result: Criminal Miscellaneous case allowed; proceedings quashed.
O R D E R
This Criminal Miscellaneous case is filed to quash the proceedings in CC No. 758/2018 on the file of the Addl.Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruvananthapuram arising from crime No. 2560/2017 of Medical College Police Station. The above case is charge-sheeted alleging offence punishable under Sec. 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (for short 'JJ Act').
2. The 1st petitioner is the Principal and the 2nd petitioner is the Sanskrit Teacher of Kendriya Vidyalaya, Air Force Station At Akkulam, Thiruvananthapuram. The allegation against the petitioners is that on 12.12.2017, when a 9th Standard student namely, Arjun Dev Singh arrived the School with short hair cut, the 2nd petitioner threatened him to shave his head openly in classroom. On the next day, he was called to the 1st petitioner's room and he was questioned as to the presence of his father in the hair cutting saloon. When he replied in positive, the Principal shouted in a horrified manner that the Air Force should be ashamed of your father. When the student requested the Principal to talk to his father, the Principal shouted that I will not talk to that useless. Hence, it is alleged that the accused committed the offence punishable under Sec.75 of the JJ Act. Hence, this Criminal Miscellaneous case is filed. According to the petitioners, even if the entire allegations are accepted, no offence is made out.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor.
4. The offence alleged against the petitioners is under Sec. 75 of the JJ Act. Sec. 75 of the JJ Act is extracted hereunder :
“75. 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 wilful 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 organisation, 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.”
5. In Jomi v. State of Kerala [ 2024 KHC 574 ], this Court considered the ingredients to attract Sec.75 of the JJ Act. It will be better to extract the relevant portion of the above judgment.
8. In Rajan @ Raju's case (supra), this Court in Paragraph No.11 observed that the precedents cited by the petitioner were all rendered prior to the advent of the JJ Act, 2000. However, the principles laid down can be applied to the instant case as well. In the cited cases, their Lordships have taken a view that when a student is sent by his parent or guardian to a school, the parent or guardian must be deemed to have given an implied consent to the child being under the discipline and control of the school authorities and to the infliction of such reasonable punishment as may be necessary for the purposes of school discipline or for correcting him. The courts have taken the view that the school teacher, in view of his peculiar position, must in the nature of thin
