“Teachers are the unsung heroes of our society” : Kerala High Court orders “mandatory preliminary enquiry” to protect teachers from immediate criminal cases over disciplinary actions.
Kiran Raj
The Kerala High Court has held that no criminal case shall be registered against teachers for acts performed inside educational institutions without first conducting a mandatory preliminary enquiry. A Single Bench of Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan, on March 10, 2025, ordered that police authorities must verify the existence of a prima facie case before initiating criminal proceedings against teachers, invoking powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The court directed the State Police Chief to issue necessary circulars or orders within one month from the date of receipt of this order, ensuring that the directive is implemented across the State. The court stated, “Teachers are the unsung heroes of our society. They shape the minds, hearts and souls of our future generation. No steps should be taken to diminish the morale of the teachers' community because they are the backbone of our future generation.”
Noting the requirement for procedural safeguards, the court held, “A preliminary enquiry is necessary before registering any criminal case against a teacher in connection with his/her actions in the school, colleges, etc., to maintain the discipline, good behaviour, etc., of their students in academic institutions.”
The petitioner, a teacher from Thiruvananthapuram, is accused of offences under Section 118(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhitha, 2023, and Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. The allegations stem from an incident reported on February 10, 2025, involving the petitioner’s alleged physical assault on a student studying in the 6th standard at approximately 12:30 p.m.
According to the prosecution, the petitioner assaulted the child with a cane due to enmity arising from the student spreading information among peers alleging that the petitioner was responsible for the death of his own son in an accident. Consequently, the accused faced charges under the BNS and JJ Act.
The petitioner, represented by counsel M.R. Sarin, submitted that no such incident occurred and that the case was falsely foisted against him. The petitioner contended that his actions were limited to advising the student regarding academic discipline, further asserting that the student, in retaliation, fabricated allegations. It was argued that teachers today face threats of criminal prosecution even when performing their educational responsibilities, creating a stifling environment detrimental to the academic system.
The Public Prosecutor, Sr. PP Noushad K.A., opposed the bail application, arguing that the accusations were serious and warranted custodial investigation.
Justice Kunhikrishnan observed, “Nowadays, the teachers in the schools are reluctant to take any risk as far as their students' behaviour, discipline etc are concerned. They believe that, even if they act bonafide, there is a threat of registration of criminal case against them.”
The court recorded that, in earlier times, strict disciplinary measures taken by teachers benefited students in shaping their lives and personalities. It observed, “In the olden days, the strict discipline of teachers benefited the student community in shaping their lives. Therefore, the role of a teacher is important in the mental, physical and educational development of a student.”
The court noted concerns about rising indiscipline among students, stating, “The behaviour of the young generation in our state is alarming. They are involved in serious criminal cases, and some of them are even addicts of drugs and alcohol. This was not the situation in olden days.”
The court also observed, “News reports are coming in which the students are threatening the teachers and they are physically attacking or even gheraoing the teachers. This tendency is to be discouraged.” Further, it remarked, “There is a vital role for the teachers' community in developing our future generation. A teacher's role is not only to teach but also to inspire, motivate and empower the students.”
The court referred to the decision in Rajan @ Raju v. Sub Inspector of Police, Feroke Police Station and Others [2018 (5) KHC 967], observing, “When a student is sent by his parent or guardian to a school, parent or guardian must be deemed to have given an implied consent to the child being under the discipline and control of the School authorities and for the infliction of such reasonable punishment as may be necessary for the purposes of School discipline or for correcting him.” However, it clarified that unreasonable suffering cannot be condoned.
Further reference was made to Geetha Manoharan Vs. State of Kerala and others [2020 (4) KHC 352], where the court had stated, “A teacher who in the course of imparting education beats a student bona fide to maintain discipline, then such a teacher is given an implied consent by the parent to discipline the pupil for the welfare of the pupil.”
Justice Kunhikrishnan also noted, “Teachers are imparting education bearing fear in mind what to do and what not to do. This is a threat to the smooth functioning of educational institutions, and this situation may lead to dangerous consequences.”
The court mandated the following: “If any complaint is received against a teacher in connection with his activities inside an educational institution, a mandatory preliminary enquiry in accordance with Sec. 173 (3)(i) is to be conducted before registering the case.”
The court referred to Section 173(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhitha, which stipulates that police officers may, with prior permission from a Deputy Superintendent of Police, conduct a preliminary enquiry in cases where the offence is punishable by three years or more but less than seven years.
The court declared, “A notice also can be given to the teacher, if necessary, for conducting the preliminary enquiry, but he shall not be arrested during the period of preliminary enquiry.”
It further instructed, “The State Police Chief will issue the necessary circular/order in this regard forthwith at any rate within 1 month from the date of receipt of this order.”
Justice Kunhikrishnan recorded, “For minor punishments of teachers in schools, without any malice, while imparting education or in connection with the discipline and behaviour of a student, the teachers should be protected from criminal prosecution.”
The court included a cultural reflection, quoting a Malayalam poem by Rafeeq Ahammed, which metaphorically criticized individuals who file frivolous complaints, comparing them to the fictional character “Koman Chettan”. The court concluded this observation by stating, “It is the duty of the police authorities to find out the grain from the chaff during the preliminary enquiry.”
In relation to the petitioner’s bail plea, the court ordered the following:
“The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer within two weeks from today and shall undergo interrogation.”
“After interrogation, if the Investigating Officer propose to arrest the petitioner, he shall be released on bail on executing a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting officer concerned.”
“The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer for interrogation as and when required. The petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation and shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer.”
The registry was also directed to forward a copy of the order to the State Police Chief for immediate compliance.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: M.R. Sarin, Parvathi Krishna, Swetha Das, Ahsana E., Aiswarya Menon
For the Respondent: (State of Kerala): Sr. Public Prosecutor Noushad K.A.
Case Title: xxx v. State of Kerala
Neutral Citation: 2025:KER:20847
Case Number: BAIL APPL. NO. 2937 OF 2025
Bench: Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan
[Read/Download order]
