Corporal punishment is inconsistent with a child’s right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, causing harm to the physical and mental health of the child, the High Court of Chhattisgarh (HC) recently held.
The ruling was delivered by Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, while dismissing a petition filed by a nun, working as a teacher at a convent school, seeking to quash the charge sheet against her in connection with the alleged abetment of a student’s suicide. The court noted 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”.
The case involved Sister Mercy aka Elizabeth Jose (petitioner), a Christian nun and teacher at Carmel Convent School in Ambikapur, Surguja District, accused under Section 305 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), for abetment of suicide of Archisha Sinha, a 6th-grade student at the school.
The petitioner, represented by lawyers Devershi Thakur and Rajat Agrawal, argued that she had no direct contact with the deceased, as her teaching duties were confined to a different grade. It was contended that the FIR was based solely on a suicide note and mere mention of her name in the suicide note of the deceased was not sufficient grounds for the charge. It was also argued that she had only reprimanded the student and taken her ID card as part of routine disciplinary procedures and had no intention of abetting the student’s suicide and was merely performing her duties. The petitioner further argued that her strict disciplinary approach has made her a target for false accusations from the respondent/ complainant and her actions do not meet the criteria for the charges framed against her.
The suicide note reportedly mentioned that Sister Mercy had taken the ID cards of the deceased and two other students. According to the note, the accompanying students had described the teacher as ‘dangerous’. The note indicated that the deceased student had been frightened by descriptions of the teacher and had later acted out of fear, leading to suicide on February 6, 2014.
Opposing the plea, panel Lawyer Kanwaljeet Singh Saini, argued that the case was scheduled for framing charges on August 30, 2024, and the evidence justified continuing the proceedings. He contended that the charge sheet and FIR were valid, pointing to the evidence suggesting that the petitioner’s actions may have contributed to the student’s distress.
The court highlighted that at this stage, it must focus solely on whether a prima facie case exists, without delving into the defence’s arguments or detailed evidence.
The court observed: “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 it causes incurable harm to body and mind.”
The HC delved into the meaning of ‘Right to Life’, highlighting that this right encompasses more than mere animal survival, extending to a dignified existence free from cruelty and abuse. This expanded interpretation of Article 21, according to the court, includes several fundamental rights, such as the right to live with dignity, freedom from arbitrary and oppressive control, torture, and terror, and protection against cruelty, physical or mental violence, injury, abuse, and 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,” the court remarked.
The Court also referred to established precedents and international conventions and stated that“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 court highlighted that corporal punishment, if proven, would be inconsistent with a child’s right to a dignified life under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, concluding that the allegations in the FIR warranted further investigation. The court stated, “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 (Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita)” previously Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
As a result, the court found no grounds to quash the charge sheet at this preliminary stage. It was held that “the present petition lacks merit and thus, liable to be dismissed.”
Comments
0 comment