Teacher’s Act of Caning Students to Enforce Discipline Not Offence: Kerala High Court Quashes Criminal Proceedings
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Kerala, Single Bench of Justice C. Pratheep Kumar, in a recent judgment, quashed the criminal proceedings against a school teacher accused of caning students during a classroom altercation. The Court referred to earlier decisions addressing the scope of corporal punishment that may be imposed by teachers, noting that a teacher has implied authority to maintain discipline and correct students placed under their supervision. It held that when such action is taken in good faith and for the purpose of guiding or correcting pupils, it does not constitute a criminal offence. The proceedings under Section 324 IPC and Section 75 of the JJ Act were accordingly quashed.
The matter arose from an incident that occurred on 16 September 2019 at around 10 a.m. in a classroom of Mambad CAUP School, Palakkad. During a scuffle among students of the fifth standard, the teacher intervened using a cane to stop the altercation. The allegation against the teacher was that he beat the children involved in the fight, causing hurt. The Vadakkencherry Police registered a case alleging offences punishable under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.
The prosecution’s version was that the teacher, while attempting to control the situation, inflicted physical punishment on the students, which constituted cruelty toward minors. It was further stated that one of the students, described as the victim, was beaten on the legs. The complaint was lodged on 20 September 2019, four days after the incident. The records indicated that no medical treatment was administered and no injuries were documented.
The teacher, as the accused, submitted that he acted only to restrain students who were attacking each other with sticks and that his action was part of maintaining discipline in class. It was contended that there was no intention to cause harm and that the use of minimal force was necessary to prevent further violence among the children. The defence relied on judicial precedents, including K.A. Abdul Vahid v. State of Kerala and Rajan @ Raju v. Sub Inspector of Police, which discussed the scope of reasonable disciplinary measures by teachers.
The State opposed the plea, maintaining that the alleged act attracted criminal liability under the cited provisions. The statutory provisions discussed included Section 324 of the IPC concerning voluntarily causing hurt and Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice Act relating to cruelty toward a child under care or protection.
Justice Pratheep Kumar referring to K.A. Abdul Vahid v. State of Kerala (2005) quoted: “When a student does not behave properly or act according to the rules of a school, and if the teacher chastise him, on a bona fide intention, by giving him a corporal punishment for improving his character and conduct, the Court has to ascertain whether the said act of the teacher was bona fide or not.” The Court held that if the teacher’s actions are found to have been done with a good intention, “it may not normally be brought under the penal provisions of the Code.”
The judgment recorded: “Parents of the said child give an implied authority to the master or the class teacher or Headmaster/Headmistress to enforce discipline and correct the students who commit errors in front of him or her or in the classes.”
Justice Pratheep Kumar also referred to Rajan @ Raju v. Sub Inspector of Police, Farook Police Station and Another (2019), which recognized that “Parents, teachers and other persons in loco parentis are entitled as a disciplinary measure to apply a reasonable degree of force to their children or pupil old enough to understand the purpose to which the act was done.” The Court recorded that “if the punishment imposed is given out of spite or for some other non-disciplinary reason or if the force is unreasonable or immoderate, it is unlawful.” However, reasonable chastisement by a teacher acting with implied parental authority is not forbidden.
Additionally, the Court cited Jomi v. State of Kerala (2024), which held that “when there is no malafide intention on the part of the teacher in inflicting corporal punishment for the well-being of the student, as well for maintaining the discipline of the institution, it is not possible to say that the offence under Section 75 of the JJ Act is attracted.”
The Court noted: “It was at that time the petitioner intervened to enforce discipline in the class. Admittedly, the petitioner caned only those three children who were engaged in the clash and that too only on their legs.” The Court further found that the complaint was delayed and unsupported by medical evidence: “There is no evidence to show that the victim sustained any bodily injury in the incident.”
The Court observed: “Since the petitioner had used only minimum corporal punishment, that too, only for enforcing discipline in the class, it is evident that he had no intention to cause any hurt to the students beyond what is required for enforcing the discipline in the class.”
The judgment stated that the petitioner’s conduct “was only for correcting the students and to make them good citizens and as such he was well within his limits.” It described the prosecution as “unwarranted,” attributing it to a misunderstanding of the teacher’s intention by the parents.
Justice Pratheep Kumar held: “The above conduct of the petitioner does not amount to any offence, including the offences punishable under Section 324 IPC and Section 75 of the JJ Act, and as such the request in this petition to quash further proceedings against the petitioner is well founded. In the above circumstances, I hold that this is a fit case in which further proceedings can be quashed by invoking the inherent power of this court.”
“In the result, this Crl. M.C. is allowed. All further proceedings in CC No.577/2023 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge-I (Special Court), Palakkad, arising from Crime No.585 of 2019 of Vadakkencherry Police Station, is quashed.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Sri. V.A. Johnson (Varikkappallil), Advocate.
For the Respondents: Sr. Public Prosecutor Sri. A. Vipin Narayan.
Case Title: Abhuthahir v. State of Kerala & Anr.
Neutral Citation: 2025: KER:76936
Case Number: Crl.M.C. No. 7164 of 2024
Bench: Justice C. Pratheep Kumar
