Subjecting Child To Corporal Punishment Can’t Be Part Of Education: Chhattisgarh HC

It is most significant to note that while ruling on a very vital point pertaining to corporal punishment, the Chhattisgarh High Court in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest judgment titled Sister Mercy @ Elizabeth Jose (Devasiya) vs State of Chhattisgarh in CRMP No. 1995 of 2024 and cited in Neutral Citation No.: 2024:CGHC:27628-DB that was pronounced as recently as on 29.07.2024 explicitly minced just no words to hold unequivocally that subjecting the child to corporal punishment for reforming him/her cannot be part of education. This was held so while refusing to quash case against a female teacher. It must be mentioned here that the Chhattisgarh High Court was dealing with a petition that had been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) by the teacher accused of abetment of suicide.

It must be noted that a Division Bench of Chhattisgarh High Court comprising of Hon’ble Shri Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal minced just no words to hold that, “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.” Absolutely right!

It is definitely most gratifying to note that the Bench said that the fundamental rights are available to the child and he cannot be deprived of the same just because he is small. It further also added that being small does not make him a less human being than a grown up. No denying it. We thus see that the High Court thus dismissed the petition and refused to quash FIR against the accused.

At the very outset, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment authored by Hon’ble Shri Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha for a Division Bench of the Chhattisgarh High Court comprising of himself and Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 2 that, “The present petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNSS’) has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayer:

“It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be kind enough in allowing the present CRMP petition and to quash the charge-sheet dated 13.04.2024, bearing Crime No. 34/2024 registered by the Police of Police of Station Manipur, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.), PIN: 497001, whereby an FIR was registered under Section 305 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) (Annexure P/1).””

To put things in perspective, the Division Bench envisages in para 3 succinctly stating that, “Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a Christian ‘Nun’ working as a regular teacher in Carmel Convent School in Ambikapur, Surguja District. An FIR has been lodged in PS Manipur, Ambikapur, District Surguja wherein she has been accused of allegedly abetting the suicide of a student, namely, Archisha Sinha, of class 6th of Carmel Convent School, where she is working as a regular teacher. He also submits that the petitioner has moved an application for grant of regular bail before this Court and vide order dated 28.03.2024, this Court granted regular bail to the petitioner in MCRC No. 1877 of 2024, by looking to the allegation as mentioned in the suicidal note and statement of accompanying friend of deceased, namely, Ku. Prishtha Parayani and Ku. Roma Tirkey.”

On the contrary, the Division Bench points out in para 9 that, “On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the prayer of quashing the impugned charge-sheet as well as FIR against the petitioner/accused and argued that the perusal of the material on record shows that the cognizable offence is made out against the petitioner/accused and the case is fixed for framing of charges on 30.08.2024. He further submits that the evidence of the classmates of the deceased recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. goes to show the act and conduct of the petitioner in the institution was so harsh that the students were in a mental trauma and as per the FIR, it is apparent that the victim was uncomfortable and fell ill when she went from the school to her house and thereafter, she committed suicide and left the suicide note.”

Needless to say, the Division Bench states in para 10 that, “We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.”

Simply put, the Division Bench notes in para 11 that, “It is trite law that at the stage of quashing, only the material of the prosecution has to be seen and the Court cannot delve into the defence of the accused and then proceed to examine the matter on its merit by weighing the evidence so produced. The disputed questions of facts in the case cannot be adjudged and adjudicated at this stage while exercising powers under Section 528 of the BNSS and only the prima facie prosecution case has to be looked into as it is. Evidence needs to be led to substantiate the defence of the accused.”

Most significantly, most remarkably, most forthrightly and so also most commendably, the Division Bench encapsulates in para 12 what constitutes the cornerstone of this notable judgment postulating that, “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. Right to life has been construed by the Courts widely. 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. Article 21 in its expanded horizon confers medley of rights on the person including the following rights:- (1) A life of dignity (2) A life which ensures freedom from arbitrary and despotic control, torture and terror (3) Life protected against cruelty, physical or mental violence, injury or abuse, exploitation including sexual abuse. All these rights are available to the child and he cannot be deprived of the same just because he is small. Being small does not make him a less human being than a grown up. 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. As noted above, it causes incalculable harm to him, in his body and mind. In F.C. Mullin vs. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi & Others, reported in (1988) 1 SCC 608, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that every limb or faculty through which life is enjoyed is protected by Article 21. This would include the faculties of thinking and feeling. Freedom of life and liberty guaranteed by Article 21 is not only violated when physical punishment scars the body, but that freedom is also violated when it scars the mind of the child and robs him of his dignity. Any act of violence which traumatises, terrorises a child, or adversely affects his faculties falls foul of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In saying so we are also keeping in view the Convention on the Rights of the Child which in clear terms cast an obligation on the state party to take all appropriate legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to protect the child from all forms of physical or mental violence, injury or abuse, maltreatment, torture, inhuman or degrading treatment, exploitation including sexual abuse while in the care of the parent, legal guardian or any other person who are in the care of the child. The signatory state is also obliged to protect the dignity of the child. We have relied upon the Convention in consonance with the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bandhua Mukti Morcha vs. Union of India and others, reported in (1997) 10 SCC 549, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court relying upon the Convention on the Rights of the Child made use of the same and read it along with Articles 21, 23, 24, 39(e) and (f) and 46 to hold that it was incumbent on the State to provide facilities to the child under Article 39(e) and (f) of the Constitution of India. It was also observed that child cannot develop to be a responsible and productive member of the society unless an environment is created which is conducive to his social and physical health.”

It is worth noting that the Division Bench notes in para 13 that, “In the instant case, specific allegation against the petitioner that she has been accused of allegedly abetting the suicide of a student, namely, Archisha Sinha, of class 6th of Carmel Convent School, where she is working as a regular teacher, therefore, at this stage, averments made in the petition that the allegations levelled against petitioner is false, cannot be looked into while exercising powers under Section 528 of the BNSS and the judgment relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner is distinguishable from the present case.”

As a corollary, the Division Bench holds in para 14 that, “In view of the aforesaid, this Court do not find any ground to quash impugned charge-sheet as well as FIR against the petitioner/accused, as the case is fixed for framing of charges against the petitioner before the learned trial Court on 30.08.2024.”

In addition, the Division Bench directs in para 15 that, “In view of the aforesaid, the present petition lacks merit and thus, liable to be dismissed.”

Finally, the Division Bench then concludes by aptly holding in para 16 that, “Accordingly, the present CRMP is dismissed.”

In a nutshell, it is high time now and it must be surely underscored that without doubt, it must be appreciated that the corporal punishment must be completely banned from school education by our policymakers by enacting strict rule in this direction. It is made indubitably clear by the Chhattisgarh High Court in this leading case that subjecting a child to corporal punishment can’t be part of education and so it definitely cannot be ever justified. We thus see here that the Chhattisgarh High Court after perusing the record of the case and hearing the parties very rightly clearly refused to quash the case against the female teacher which clearly implies that she would be prosecuted for abetment of suicide in accordance with law and shall be subjected to punishment if found guilty! No denying or disputing it!

Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,

s/o Col (Retd) BPS Sirohi,

A 82, Defence Enclave,

Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera,

Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh.