Introduction:

In Sibin S. V. v. State of Kerala, WP(C) 2937 of 2025, the Kerala High Court, in a significant ruling, directed that before registering a criminal case against a teacher for acts committed within an educational institution, a preliminary enquiry must be conducted to ascertain if a prima facie case exists. Justice P. V. Kunhikrishnan observed that teachers should not face criminal prosecution for minor punishments given without malice. The case stemmed from an incident where the petitioner, a teacher, was accused of assaulting a student with a cane. The teacher countered the allegations, stating that he had only attempted to correct the student’s behavior after the child made distressing comments about the death of the teacher’s son. The petitioner was booked under Section 118 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act. The Court, while granting bail, emphasized the importance of teacher authority in maintaining discipline and ruled that the police must conduct a preliminary enquiry under Section 173(3) of the BNS before proceeding with complaints against teachers. It also instructed the State Police Chief to issue a circular within a month ensuring compliance with this directive.

Arguments of Both Sides:

The petitioner’s counsel, Advocates M. R. Sarin, Parvathi Krishna, Swetha Das, Ahsanan E., and Aiswarya Menon, contended that the allegations were exaggerated and that the petitioner had no intent to cause harm. They submitted that the student had fabricated the allegations in response to the teacher’s continuous academic guidance. The petitioner argued that disciplining students is an inherent part of a teacher’s duty and that minor punishments should not be criminalized unless there is clear evidence of malice or excessive force. It was also submitted that the petitioner was being unfairly targeted for a well-intentioned corrective action, which is essential for maintaining discipline in educational institutions. On the other hand, the prosecution, represented by Public Prosecutor Noushad K. A., argued that corporal punishment is not permissible and that the teacher’s actions constituted cruelty under the Juvenile Justice Act. The prosecution maintained that the child had suffered distress and that strict action was necessary to prevent future incidents of teacher misconduct. However, the Court rejected the argument that minor punishments warranted criminal prosecution without proper scrutiny. It emphasized that if every instance of minor discipline led to an FIR, it would discourage teachers from fulfilling their responsibilities effectively.

Judgement:

The Court observed that parents entrust teachers with their children’s discipline and education, and teachers should not operate in an environment of fear. Justice Kunhikrishnan remarked that while it is essential to prevent abuse, criminalizing legitimate disciplinary actions will deteriorate the quality of education and student behavior. The Court referred to Section 173(3) of the BNS, which allows for a preliminary enquiry in cases punishable with imprisonment between three and seven years, and ruled that police must apply this provision before registering cases against teachers. It also held that teachers should not be arrested during the enquiry period unless necessary. Additionally, the Court suggested that teachers should be allowed to carry a cane as a symbolic deterrent to prevent student misconduct, noting the rise in student involvement in violent activities, drug use, and indiscipline. The Court directed the State Police Chief to issue an official circular ensuring that all police officers comply with the requirement of a preliminary enquiry before initiating criminal proceedings against teachers. The ruling provides a crucial safeguard against arbitrary criminalization of teachers’ disciplinary actions and aims to restore the balance between student rights and teacher authority.