The Chhattisgarh High Court has taken a strong stance against corporal punishment in schools, calling it a violation of children’s fundamental rights. This decision came as the court dismissed a petition filed by Sister Mercy, a teacher accused of abetting the suicide of a Class VI student. The court deemed subjecting children to physical violence as inhumane and a violation of their right to life and dignity, as guaranteed by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
In its order on July 29, a division bench comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal stated that corporal punishment has no place in education. “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 court emphasized. It further stressed that children, despite their age, are human beings with dignity and deserve to be treated with respect, not cruelty.
The case stemmed from an FIR lodged in February against Sister Mercy, a teacher at the Carmel Convent School in Ambikapur, for allegedly abetting the suicide of a student. The student’s suicide note named Sister Mercy, leading to her arrest. While the petitioner’s lawyer argued that Sister Mercy only admonished the student as part of the school’s disciplinary procedure, the state counsel presented evidence from classmates suggesting that her conduct caused significant mental trauma.
Despite the petitioner’s defense, the High Court dismissed the petition to quash the FIR and chargesheet. It emphasized that the court’s role at this stage is to examine the prima facie prosecution case, not delve into the accused’s defense. The court found no grounds to quash the chargesheet and FIR, stating that the disputed questions of fact must be determined through evidence presented during the trial.
This ruling by the Chhattisgarh High Court serves as a strong message against the use of corporal punishment in schools. It underscores the importance of upholding children’s rights and ensuring a safe and nurturing learning environment. The court’s stance reiterates the principle that education should foster growth and development, not inflict harm and trauma.
