The Kerala High Court has quashed a criminal case against a school teacher who caned three students, stating that the teacher's actions were intended to maintain discipline and not to cause harm. Justice C. Pratheep Kumar, in his order on October 16, 2025, set aside the criminal proceedings, emphasizing a teacher's authority to enforce discipline within reasonable limits.
The case originated from a complaint filed by parents alleging that the teacher struck their Class 5 children on the legs during class on September 16, 2019. The Vadakkencherry police registered the case four days later, on September 20. The court noted the delay in reporting the incident and the lack of evidence indicating any significant injuries to the children, suggesting minimal force was used.
Justice Kumar asserted that the teacher acted with restraint and had "no intention to cause harm beyond what was necessary to enforce discipline". The court deemed the prosecution "unfortunate," pointing out the parents' failure to recognize the teacher's good intentions. It was further observed that when parents entrust their children to a teacher, there is an implied consent for the teacher to exercise parental authority to correct the students.
The High Court referenced precedents that allow teachers to administer corporal punishment to students who misbehave or violate school rules. The court has to ascertain whether the act of the teacher was bona fide. If it is found that he had acted with a good intention, only to improve or correct the student, he is within his limits. The teacher in this case had intervened in a fight between students who were hitting each other with sticks.
The offenses charged against the teacher included Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means, and Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act 2015, which deals with punishment for cruelty to a child.
The court noted the absence of medical treatment for the children and concluded that the teacher used minimal force to correct them, without intending to cause harm. Consequently, the court quashed the criminal proceedings, affirming a teacher's right to maintain discipline within reasonable bounds.
This ruling aligns with previous observations made by the Kerala High Court, which has emphasized the importance of protecting teachers from unwarranted criminal complaints for disciplinary actions. Earlier in March 2025, the court suggested that teachers should be allowed to carry canes in schools, not for punishment, but as a psychological deterrent against misbehavior. The court had also ruled that minor punishments for discipline should not lead to criminal charges and that a proper inquiry must be conducted before filing any criminal case against a teacher.
The decision has sparked debate about the appropriateness of corporal punishment in schools, with child rights advocates generally opposing it and emphasizing non-violent methods for maintaining discipline and fostering a positive learning environment.
