Punjab & Haryana High Court Directs Enforcement Of LGBTQIA+ Anti-Bullying Safeguards In All Haryana Schools

The Court directed the Department, acting through District Education Officers, to ensure compliance by all schools in Haryana, irrespective of their affiliation, with the Supreme Court’s binding guidelines in Sukdeb Saha v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2025) and the Guidelines on School Safety and Security, 2021.

The Court was hearing a petition filed by the mother of a minor student who died by suicide after allegedly experiencing sustained bullying, harassment, sexual assault and cyberbullying connected with his perceived sexual orientation and gender expression. The Court expressly refrained from deciding the criminal liability arising from those allegations.

A Bench of Justice Manisha Batra directed: “Respondent No.5-Department of School Education, Haryana, through the District Education Officers, shall ensure that all the schools functioning in the State of Haryana, irrespective of their affiliation, comply with the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sukdeb Saha's case (supra), particularly Guidelines II, III, VII, VIII and X, and with the Guidelines on School Safety and Security, 2021.”

The Court added: “In particular, it shall be ensured that the mechanism and the internal committee in every school expressly cover complaints of bullying and harassment on the basis of gender, gender identity and sexual orientation. It shall further be ensured that such complaints are dealt with promptly and confidentially, and that the cases in which a cognizable offence is disclosed are reported to the police as required by law. The needful be done within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.”

Advocate Arpandeep Narula appeared for the petitioner. Senior Advocate Dheeraj Jain appeared for the Union of India. Advocates Prateek Gupta and Beant Singh Seemar appeared for the CBI and CBSE respectively. Additional Advocate General Neeraj Poswal appeared for the State authorities, while Advocate A.D.S. Sukhija assisted the Court as amicus curiae.

Background

According to the petitioner, her minor child was bullied, physically and sexually assaulted by other students and subjected to cyberbullying. She alleged that the school had been informed of his condition and the complaints of harassment but failed to take effective action.

Following the child’s death, a criminal case was registered for abetment of suicide and provisions of the POCSO Act were subsequently added. The petitioner initially sought transfer of the investigation to the CBI, monitoring of the investigation and nationwide guidelines protecting LGBTQIA+ students.

The prayer for transferring the investigation to the CBI was dismissed as not pressed. Since the investigation had concluded and a final report had been filed before the competent court, the High Court also declined to continue monitoring it. The Court granted the petitioner liberty to raise alleged investigative deficiencies before the competent court.

The remaining issue concerned sensitisation of educational institutions and effective implementation of safeguards against bullying and harassment of LGBTQIA+ students.

Court’s Observations

Existing Guidelines Addressed The Petitioner’s Concerns

The Court noted that the field was not unoccupied. CBSE had already issued a circular requiring affiliated schools to establish anti-bullying committees, counsellors and confidential reporting mechanisms. The Union had also issued national guidelines dealing with school safety, psycho-social well-being and institutional accountability.

More importantly, the Supreme Court had issued binding guidelines in Sukdeb Saha under Articles 32 and 141 of the Constitution to address student suicides and safety within educational institutions.

The Court observed: “A bare perusal of the above guidelines shows that the very concerns raised by the petitioner in this petition have now been addressed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Guideline VII mandates training of all staff to deal sensitively and without discrimination with vulnerable students, expressly including students belonging to LGBTQ+ communities. Guideline VIII mandates a confidential mechanism and an internal committee in every educational institution for redressal of bullying and harassment on the basis of gender and sexual orientation.”

The Court added that the Supreme Court’s guidelines required qualified counsellors, optimal student-to-counsellor ratios, staff training, confidential complaint mechanisms and annual reporting by educational institutions. They applied to public and private educational institutions irrespective of affiliation.

Separate Guidelines Could Create Confusion

The Court held that issuing another set of guidelines on the same subject would serve no useful purpose and could create confusion. It also observed that matters such as gender-neutral washrooms, uniform codes and particular curricular content fell within the domain of the executive and expert bodies.

The Court stated: “In view of the binding guidelines of the Hon'ble Supreme Court holding the field, no useful purpose would be served by this Court laying down a separate set of guidelines on the same subject. Rather, a parallel set of guidelines issued by this Court may create confusion in their implementation. Any further policy measure, beyond what has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and by the competent authorities, is a matter for the executive and the expert bodies to consider.”

Effective Implementation Was The Real Issue

The Court observed that safeguards existing only on paper would provide little protection to children in distress. It noted that anti-bullying guidelines were already operative during the period in which the petitioner alleged that her child suffered harassment.

The Court remarked: “At the same time, the facts of the present case show that guidelines which remain on paper offer little protection to a child in distress. The CBSE circular of the year 2015 was in force throughout the period during which the deceased child is alleged to have suffered. As per the record, the school was informed about his condition by his mother and by his treating Psychologist. The real issue, therefore, is the effective implementation of the existing guidelines at the level of the schools.”

The Court held that directing the State Education Department and CBSE to enforce the binding framework did not amount to framing new policy. Such directions secured the right of children to a safe school environment under Article 21.

Institutional Responsibility For Bullying Complaints

The Court noted that the Supreme Court’s guidelines required accessible and confidential mechanisms for reporting sexual assault, harassment, ragging and bullying based on gender, sexual orientation, caste, class, disability, religion or ethnicity.

The Court further noted that the guidelines required immediate action, psycho-social support, protection against retaliation and referral to trained mental-health professionals. The Court noted that the guidelines treat failure to take timely or adequate action—particularly where such neglect contributes to self-harm or suicide—as institutional culpability, making the administration liable to regulatory and legal consequences.

The Court nevertheless clarified that the criminal liability of those accused in the case would be independently determined by the trial court on the evidence before it.

Conclusion

The High Court directed both the Haryana School Education Department and CBSE to complete their respective compliance measures within three months of receiving the certified judgment. The Department was required to secure compliance by all schools, while CBSE was directed to instruct its affiliated schools within the Court’s territorial jurisdiction to follow its anti-bullying circular and the Sukdeb Saha guidelines, obtain and scrutinise annual reports, and act against non-compliance.

The Union of India was directed to treat the petitioner’s suggestions concerning counsellor-student ratios, training for counsellors dealing with LGBTQIA+ children and curricular sensitisation as a representation. It was directed to consult NCERT, pass a speaking order within six months and communicate its decision to the petitioner.

The prayer for transferring the investigation to the CBI was dismissed as not pressed. The monitoring prayer was dismissed as infructuous, while the petitioner was granted liberty to raise alleged investigative deficiencies before the competent court through an appropriate application in accordance with law. Any such application must be considered and decided on its own merits.

The Court directed that the identities of the deceased child and the students who were minors at the relevant time must not be disclosed in any record of the case made available to the public.

It clarified that its observations would not influence the criminal trial, which must be decided independently on the evidence.

The petition was disposed of in these terms.

Cause Title: Aarti Malhotra v. Union of India and others (Neutral Citation: 2026:PHHC:192847)

Appearances

Petitioner: Advocate Arpandeep Narula

Respondents: Senior Advocate Dheeraj Jain with Advocate Gurmeet Sagoo; Advocate Prateek Gupta; Advocate Beant Singh Seemar; Additional Advocate General Neeraj Poswal; Advocate A.D.S. Sukhija

Click here to read/download Judgment