Karnataka High Court Urges Schools to Reassess ‘Harsh’ Disciplinary Measures Impacting Students’ Mental Health
Karnataka High Court
Mrs Gauramma & Others V. State of Karnataka & ANR
CRIMINAL PETITION No.4725 OF 2023
Bench- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA
Decided On 26-06-2023
Facts of the case-
Petitioners 1 to 3, namely the Principal, Director, and Hostel Warden of Karumbaiah Academy for Learning and Sports School, are accused in a case. The 2nd petitioner, who is the Director, is responsible for the day-to-day operations of the school. The 1st petitioner is the Principal, and the 3rd petitioner is the Hostel Warden. The 2nd respondent is the complainant, the father of a 15-year-old boy named Nihal Bidappa, who was a student at the school in the 9th grade.
According to the petition, Nihal Bidappa was described as a mischievous child and had undergone counseling on three occasions: 09-12-2021, 09-02-2022, and 09-08-2022. It is claimed that during the last counseling session, which involved Nihal and his mother, no supporting documents were provided. Subsequently, on 25-08-2022, during a random check by the class teacher, it was discovered that Nihal had alcohol in his bag, specifically a bottle of mineral water. He then submitted a written apology for this act. As a form of punishment, the school instructed Nihal not to attend classes for 21 days. Due to the upcoming exams, Nihal’s parents approached the school, pleading for their son to be allowed to continue attending classes to avoid jeopardizing his academic career. However, the school remained firm in its decision.
Nevertheless, the school agreed to let Nihal take the exams from home through an online link. Nihal waited in front of the computer from 10-10 a.m. to 12.30 p.m. but did not receive the link, rendering him unable to participate in the exam. The time for completing the exam and submitting the answer papers had already passed. As a result, Nihal became frustrated and tragically took his own life between 12.30 p.m. and 1.00 p.m.
Following this incident, a complaint was filed with the local police, who classified it as an unnatural death and issued an Unnatural Death Report (UDR). Subsequent communications between the school and Nihal’s parents failed to yield a resolution. Consequently, the parents filed a private complaint on 28-12-2022, accusing the petitioners of instigating their son’s suicide. The learned Magistrate, through an order dated 29-12-2022, referred the matter for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). As a result, a case was registered as Crime No. 125 of 2022, involving charges under Sections 305, 499 & 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 17 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act).
During the investigation, the police filed a ‘B’ report (closure report) before the concerned court. However, the complainant filed a protest petition against the closure report. The court, in its order dated 16-05-2023, rejected the ‘B’ report and took cognizance of the offenses punishable under Sections 305, 499 r/w 34 of the IPC. The court further directed the matter to be scheduled for recording the sworn statement of the complainant. This decision of taking cognizance and recording the sworn statement prompted the petitioners to approach the present court through this petition.
Judgement
The petition filed by the Principal and other officials of a school in Kodagu district, challenging the Magistrate court’s rejection of the ‘B summary report’ filed by the police regarding an alleged abetment to suicide of a student, has been dismissed by the Court. Upon examining the written apology submitted by the student, the bench expressed doubt about its authenticity, suggesting that it may have been dictated by someone else. The Court also noted that the parents were summoned to the school and reportedly counseled after the incident.
In reference to the report generated by the counselors three days after the boy’s death, the bench criticized the school for exploiting the boy’s death to create a report that portrayed him in a negative light, in an attempt to shift the blame onto him. The Court regarded this behavior as highly inappropriate and indicative of an uncaring attitude on the part of the educational institution.
The Court upheld the Magistrate court’s decision to reject the B report, emphasizing that all the submissions made by the learned senior counsel, based on documents attached to the criminal petition, were either generated after the boy’s death or far from the truth. The Court established the falsity of these submissions based on concrete evidence. Therefore, it concluded that this was not a case lacking instigation or provocation; rather, it was a case that appeared to involve both, at least prima facie.
Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, affirming the Magistrate court’s order.
JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY ABHAY SHUKLA
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”