Karnataka High Court calls for paradigm shift from harsh disciplinary action in educational institutions after student suicide

The Karnataka High Court on Monday urged educational institutions in the State to undertake a 'paradigm shift' from harsh disciplinary action following the death of a student by suicide. [Gauramma and Ors v. State of Karnataka and Anr].Justice M Nagaprasanna emphasized that the shift was necessary to ensure the well-being and safety of young souls like the student who passed away, who may sometimes lack the capacity to fully grasp the consequences of their actions."The schools which are inculcating harsh discipline should think of a paradigm shift, so that the lives of young souls, who do not have the capacity to think of the consequences of any action sometimes may lead to devastating steps like the one found in the case at hand. Such cases would form illustrations of negative self evaluation and the children feeling bad about themselves. The Educational Institutions therefore, have to recognize this malady of over/harsh discipline, remedy the wrong in a different manner, so that the lives of young souls would be saved," the order stated..The Court was hearing a plea filed by the Principal and other officials of a school in Kodagu district, challenging a magistrate's decision to dismiss the B summary report filed by the police regarding the alleged abetment to suicide of a student.A B summary report is a cancellation report filed by the police stating that no evidence was found to proceed with filing charges for trial..According to the complaint by the student's parents, the student was suspended for allegedly carrying alcohol to school. Following a request by his parents, he was allowed to appear for examinations online from home. However, he kept waiting for the exam link but did not receive the same. After the exam time was over, the student took his own life..The petitioners contended that the mischievous boy had been counseled three times, indicating an underlying problem. They said that suspending or barring the student from exams was a common disciplinary measure.They further argued that they were not at fault, as they did not instigate the boy's actions. Hence, the petitioners sought discontinuation of proceedings against them..The respondents, on the other hand, claimed that the petitioners had tortured the boy for close to two months.They informed the Court that the boy and his friend were caught carrying alcohol and tendered written apologies on the same day. While the other student was let off, the deceased boy was punished.The respondents further underlined that the school had assured them that he would be allowed to appear for the examination so that if required, he could be transferred to another school, which was only possible with a result..The Court, on examining the written apology tendered by the boy, concluded that it did not inspire confidence as it was clearly dictated by someone else.Further, the Court expressed shock at the student counselor's report which was produced three days after the boy's death. It said that the school's act of drawing up a report to show the boy in poor light to shift the blame on him demonstrated an uncouth attitude."It is rather unfortunate that the school after the death of the boy, use the death of the boy to draw up a report which shows the boy in such poor light, to shift the blame upon the boy. There cannot be any better generation of uncouth attitude on the part of the educational institution," the Court said..Recording that the school had uttered blatant falsehoods regarding the boy having psychological issues, the Court found no reason to interfere with the magistrate's order rejecting the B summary report.It explained that every submission by the petitioners on the strength of documents were all generated after the boy's death and were far from the truth."The falsity noted is not in thin air, but on the strength of documents. Therefore, this is not a case where there is neither instigation nor provocation. It is a case which has both, albeit, prima facie," it added.Therefore, the Court refused to entertain the plea..The petitioners were represented by Senior Advocate PP Hegde and Advocate Venkatesh Somareddi.The State was represented by High Court Government Pleader (HCGP) Mahesh Shetty. The boy's father was represented by Advocate Prashanth Chinnappa..[Read Order]