Kerala High Court: In a matter wherein, a teacher charged with offences punishable under Section 118(1) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhitha, 2023 (‘BNS’) and Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (‘JJ Act’), P.V. Kunhikrishnan, J. while granting bail to the accused teacher, held that any complaint received against a teacher in connection with their activities within an educational institution must undergo a mandatory preliminary inquiry, as outlined under Section 173(3)(i), before any case is registered. The Court further stated that a notice may be issued to the teacher, if necessary, to conduct the preliminary inquiry, but the teacher should not be arrested during this process.
Background
The prosecution’s case was that on 10-02-2025, the accused summoned the son of the de facto complainant, who was a 6th standard student. It was alleged that the accused assaulted the complainant’s son with a cane, allegedly due to personal enmity. The enmity is said to have arisen after the complainant’s son reportedly spread news among other students about the death of the accused’s son in an accident, in which the accused was allegedly involved while driving the vehicle. Based on these allegations, it is claimed that the accused committed the offense.
Analysis and Decision
The Court remarked that, in recent times, criminal cases are often registered against teachers based on complaints from students or their parents alleging misbehavior, assault, and similar accusations. While it is acknowledged that there may be rare instances where some teachers might have committed offences, the Court emphasized that such cases should not lead to the generalization or blame of the entire teaching community. Teachers should not be expected to carry out their duties under the constant threat of criminal charges. The Court further stressed the necessity of conducting a preliminary enquiry before registering any criminal case against a teacher, particularly in connection with actions occurring within schools, colleges, or other academic institutions, to uphold the discipline, good behavior, and integrity of the educational environment.
The Court observed that, nowadays, teachers in schools are often hesitant to take any risks concerning their students’ behavior and discipline. They fear that even if they act in good faith, there is always a looming threat of criminal charges being filed against them. In contrast to the past, where strict discipline from teachers played a significant role in shaping students’ lives positively, today’s educational environment has become increasingly cautious. The role of a teacher is pivotal not only in the academic development of a student but also in their mental and physical growth. When parents entrust their children to schools, they give teachers the responsibility to ensure the child’s overall development, including their mental health, discipline, and educational needs. Teachers, while performing their duties in schools and colleges, should not be subjected to the constant fear of criminal action hanging over them like a sword of Damocles.
The Court emphasized that while not all teachers are perfect, the occasional need for guidance or even small corrective measures should not be met with the threat of criminal prosecution, especially when these actions are in the best interest of the child’s future.
After considering its previous decisions1, the Court highlighted that while it has consistently affirmed that teachers have the authority and responsibility to maintain discipline, impart education, and shape the behavior of students, the reality is that teachers are increasingly facing criminal charges over minor incidents. The Court pointed out that even in cases where a teacher might have inadvertently pinched, pushed, or poked a student without malice, criminal cases are being filed based on complaints from students or parents. The Court stressed that this trend should be halted, as it creates an environment where teachers are unable to effectively carry out their duties. If teachers continue to face the threat of criminal prosecution over trivial matters, they will be unable to focus on their primary responsibility of educating and nurturing students.
The Court opined that if a parent or student files any complaint against a teacher alleging any criminal offence committed inside an educational institution, a preliminary enquiry should be conducted to ascertain whether there exists a prima facie case for proceeding with the matter.
After referring to Section 173(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’), the Court concluded that any complaint received against a teacher in connection with their activities within an educational institution must undergo a mandatory preliminary inquiry, as outlined under Section 173(3)(i), before any case is registered. The Court further stated that a notice may be issued to the teacher, if necessary, to conduct the preliminary inquiry, but the teacher should not be arrested during this process. In exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Court has issued this order.
Additionally, the Court directed that if further clarification is required, the state or police authorities may approach the Court with the appropriate petition in accordance with the law. The State Police Chief is instructed to issue the necessary circular or order in this regard without delay, and in any case, within one month from the receipt of this order.
The Court noted that the maximum punishment for the offence under Section 118(1) of the BNS is three years, while for Section 75 of the JJ Act, it is five years.
Considering this, the Court concluded that the petitioner is eligible for bail, subject to stringent conditions.
[Sibin S.V v. State of Kerala, Bail Appl. No. 2937 of 2025, decided on 10-03-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For Petitioner: M.R.Sarin, Parvathi Krishna, Swetha Das, Ahsana E., Aiswarya Menon
For Respondent: Public Prosecutor, Senior Public Prosecutor Noushad K A
Buy Constitution of India HERE
1. Rajan v. Sub Inspector of Police 2018 (5) KHC 967 ; Geetha Manoharan v State of Kerala , 2020 (4) KHC 352
