School Bus Is An Extension Of The School Itself: Karnataka High Court Refuses To Quash FIR Against School Over Child Losing Eye In School Bus Accident
The Court observed that investigation was necessary into alleged failure of supervision, attendant requirement and safety compliance under Section 125(a) BNS.
Justice M. Nagaprasanna, Karnataka High Court
The Karnataka High Court has refused to quash criminal proceedings against a school management accused of negligence after a Class 4 student suffered permanent vision loss in one eye due to an incident inside a school bus, holding that a school’s duty of care does not end within the classroom and extends until the child is safely returned to the parents.
In the matter, on August 01, 2025, a fourth-standard student travelling in the school bus allegedly suffered an eye injury after coloured confetti/sparklers carried by other children entered his eye. The injury resulted in permanent damage, with the child being assessed with 40% disability.
Justice M. Nagaprasanna while dismissing the petition filed by Divyajyothi School Management seeking quashing of an FIR registered under Section 125(a) BNS, observed, “…A child which travels in a school bus which is an extension of the school itself, cannot be left high and dry till the child from the school reaches the house even if it is the last stop. The schools cannot show a hands off to the responsibility of compliance with the mandate of the statute”.
“Therefore, the safety of children in a school bus is not a matter of charity or convenience; it is a solemn obligation mandated under the Statute as well. Whether there was an attendant in the bus, a security or whether the CCTV camera was installed, even if installed, was merely ornamental or functional, whether prohibited or dangerous material was allowed to be carried by children, whether the school had issued and enforced adequate safety instructions, and whether the management failed in its duty of supervision are all matters which cry for investigation”, the Bench further noted.
Advocate Nitin A M appeared for the petitioner and Waheeda M.M, HCGP appeared for the respondent.
The complainant alleged that the school management failed to ensure adequate supervision inside the bus, failed to provide proper attendant support, and failed to maintain functional CCTV surveillance. The school argued that the incident was caused by the act of another child and that the management could not be held criminally liable for an unexpected act occurring after school hours.
Rejecting the plea, the High Court held that at the stage of investigation, the Court cannot conduct a mini-trial or examine the defence of the accused. The allegations, if taken at face value, disclosed the ingredients of the alleged offence and required investigation.
Referring to the Karnataka Educational Institutions (Classification, Regulation and Prescription of Curricula, etc.) (Amendment) Rules, 2018, the Court noted that schools are required to ensure safety measures during student transportation, including the presence of attendants and supervision of school vehicles.
The Bench held that issues such as whether an attendant was present, whether CCTV was functional, whether safety instructions were followed, and whether the management failed in its supervisory duty were matters requiring investigation.
“…The petitioner may ultimately demonstrate absence of criminal negligence. But that conclusion cannot be recorded today by strangulating the investigation at its inception, especially when the incident has resulted in permanent disability to a child, a child of tender age, yet to behold the full bloom of life, has been condemned to live with permanent visual impairment”, the Bench further noted.
The Court further rejected the argument that the act of another student automatically absolved the school, observing that the question of criminal negligence could only be determined after investigation. The petition was accordingly dismissed, allowing the criminal investigation to continue.
Cause Title: Divyajyothi School Management v. State of Karnataka & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2026:KHC:31211)
Appearances:
Petitioner: Nitin A M, Advocate.
Respondents: Waheeda M.M, HCGP, D.A. Shivakumar, Advocate.