Physical violence on students in the name of discipline is cruel: Chhattisgarh High Court

The Chhattisgarh High Court recently observed that subjecting school students to physical violence or corporal punishment in the name of discipline is cruel and cannot be part of education [Sister Mercy v. State of Chhattisgarh]..The Court made this comment on the permissible limits of disciplinary measures while refusing to quash a criminal case filed against a convent school teacher who was named in a student's suicide note.A Bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal observed that being small does not make a child less human than a grown-up.Corporal punishment violates a child's dignity and cannot be part of education, the Court said. “It also appears to us that corporal punishment is not keeping with child’s dignity. Besides, it is cruel to subject the child to physical violence in school in the name of discipline or education. Child being a precious national resource is to be nurtured and attended with tenderness and care and not with cruelty. Subjecting the child to corporal punishment for reforming him cannot be part of education…it causes incalculable harm to him, in his body and mind,” the Court said. .Corporal punishment violates Article 21 of the Constitution, the Court held."It is also evident that imposition of corporal punishment on the child is not in consonance with his right to life guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India. On a larger canvass, right to life includes all that which gives meaning to life and makes it wholesome and worth living. It means something more than survival or animal existence. Right to life enshrined in Article 21 also embraces any aspect of life which makes it dignified,” the Court said..The Court was dealing with a plea to quash a suicide abetment case filed against a Christian catholic nun (petitioner) who was a teacher at a convent school in Surguja district. The petitioner was named in a suicide note recovered after a class 6 student died by suicide. The petitioner was said to have admonished the sixth-grade student and some of her classmates after they were found skipping class. The nun claimed that she had only confiscated their student ID, as is the usual disciplinary procedure. Even the suicide note did not explain why the teacher was named, her counsel argued. The State, however, countered that the statements of the student witnesses indicated that the petitioner's conduct was so harsh it caused mental trauma for the students. The Court noted that it cannot delve into whether the allegations are false or not at the present stage while exercising powers under Section 528 (quashing of FIR) of the Bharatiya Naragrik Surakhsha Sanhita (BNSS).“The disputed questions of facts in the case cannot be adjudged and adjudicated at this stage ... Evidence needs to be led to substantiate the defence of the accused," the Court said. Therefore, it dismissed the plea and refused to quash the case..Advocates Devershi Thakur and Rajat Agrawal appeared for the convent school teacher (petitioner).Advocate Kanwaljeet Singh Saini appeared for the State..[Read Order]