Calcutta High Court lays down standards of conduct for teachers

The Calcutta High Court recently issued guidelines for teachers to conduct themselves in a proper manner and avoid indulging in politics [Dr. Sima Banerjee vs Dr. Barnali Chattopadhyay]..Single-judge Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul) said that teachers are expected to adhere to professional standards of conduct including the following: 1. Respect for students: Treat students with dignity and fairness, fostering an inclusive and supportive learning environment. 2. Competence: Demonstrate expertise in their subject matter and teaching methods. 3. Integrity: Be honest and transparent in all academic and administrative dealings. 4. Professionalism: Maintain appropriate boundaries and behaviour in interactions with students, colleagues, and staff. 5. Fairness and impartiality: Evaluate students' work objectively and provide constructive feedback. 6. Continuous improvement: Engage in professional development activities to enhance teaching skills and stay current in their field. 7. Collegiality: Collaborate with colleagues and contribute positively to the academic community. 8. Compliance with institutional policies: Follow college policies and procedures related to teaching, research, and student support. The Court was dealing with a plea filed by the Principal of Hooghly Women's College seeking to quash the defamation case filed against her by a teacher in the college."It is very unfortunate that under political influence, the primary purpose to provide education is completely overlooked, such hostile atmosphere in an educational institution goes against the welfare (which is paramount) of the students whose future is in the hands of these colleges," the judge observed in a May 2 order..As per the prosecution case, the petitioner, after becoming the principal of the Hooghly Women's College in 2015, has allegedly been ventilating false rumours regarding some fictitious conspiracies in the name of the respondent teacher. It was also alleged that on August 9, 2018, the petitioner had in a public interview castigated the ongoing situation in Hooghly Women‘s College, wherein she had named the teacher of abetting and aggravating the chaos in the college. The said interview, the complainant claimed, was aired by ABP Ananda on August 10, 2018, wherein the petitioner allegedly chastised the ongoing political and chaotic situation of Hooghly Women‘s College and allegedly on several occasions named the complainant teacher as well as one Priyanka Adhikary, the Joint Secretary of the District Wing of the Trinamool Chhatra Parishad (TMCP) as well as the Secretary of the TMCP Students Union of Hooghly Women‘s College, as being the chief abettor of various illegal activities in the college..Having considered the facts of the case, the Court held that the alleged imputations made by the petitioner would fall within the ambit of 'Exceptions' to Section 499 (Defamation) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)."The facts as stated in the written complaint in this case comes under the 9th exception as laid down under Section 499 and thus the ingredients required to constitute the offence alleged under Section 500 is clearly absent in the present case," the court opined.On examination of the contents in the written complaint, the Court said there was no material to show that any imputations has been made against the complainant, with the intent to cause harm, or with knowledge or belief that it will harm the reputation of the complainant. "The statements in the interview made by the petitioner herein clearly come within the ninth exception under Section 499 IPC and as such the ingredients required to constitute the offences alleged is clearly absent against the petitioner," the Court said while quashing the case..Advocates Apalak Basu, Abhradip Jha and Jagriti Bhattacharya appeared for the petitioner.Advocates Goutam Brahma, Tapash Das, Pampa Ghosh and Arijit Dey represented the respondent..[Read Judgment]