Teacher Can’t Be Prosecuted For Inflicting Trivial Punishment To Correct Child Or Maintain Discipline: Kerala High Court

The High Court was considering a Petition filed by a teacher who sought quashing of the final report in a criminal case.

The Single Bench of Justice Jobin Sebastian held, “Apart from imparting knowledge, teachers have a duty to guide, correct and discipline the student. In discharging such responsibility, the teachers have a role akin to that of a parent. However, such responsibility must always be exercised with care and without causing harm to the child. However, merely because a teacher has inflicted or awarded a trivial punishment as a corrective measure to correct a child or to maintain the discipline of the institution, he or she cannot be prosecuted in a criminal proceeding. If teachers are subjected to criminal prosecution under the Juvenile Justice Act for implementing simple and minimal corrective measures to preserve institutional discipline, the very administration and orderly functioning of educational institutions would be jeopardised.”

Advocate Gopakumar R. Thaliyal represented the Petitioner while Senior Public Prosecutor Navas V.A. represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The case dates back to the year 2018 when the petitioner, a class teacher, allegedly with an intention to cause hurt to the de facto complainant, a student of the fifth standard, caught hold of her hand, pulled her, and as a result of which the de facto complainant’s leg got entangled in a bench, causing her to sustain a contusion and pain on her right knee. The accused was alleged to have committed the offences punishable under Section 82(1) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, and Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code.

The crime was initially registered for the offences punishable under Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 and Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code. After investigation, the police filed the final report alleging commission of the offences punishable under Section 82(1) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act and Section 323 of the IPC. The case was pending before the Special Court constituted for the trial of offences under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act.

Reasoning

The Bench, at the outset, stated, “Apart from imparting knowledge, teachers have a duty to guide, correct and discipline the student. In discharging such responsibility, the teachers have a role akin to that of a parent.”

The Bench noted the statements of the other students who witnessed the incident, suggesting that the teacher had caught hold of the hands of the victim and pulled her without any mala fide intention and only as a measure to maintain discipline in the classroom. “The materials collected during investigation do not indicate any criminal intention on the part of the petitioner to harass, abuse or cause injury to the child”, it added.

Holding that the allegations did not disclose that the petitioner had subjected the child to corporal punishment with any mala fide intention and the wound certificate also suggested that only minor injuries were sustained, the Bench allowed the Petition and quashed the final report as well as all further proceedings pursuant thereto.

Cause Title: Jolly John v. State of Kerala (Neutral Citation: 2026:KER:78515)

Appearance

Petitioner: Advocates Gopakumar R. Thaliyal, R.B. Balachandran, Sandeep V

Respondent: Senior Public Prosecutor Navas V.A.

Click here to read/download Order