In a series of recent judgments, several Indian High Courts have clarified that reasonable physical discipline by teachers, although undesirable, does not constitute a criminal offence under current laws. These rulings navigate a delicate intersection of educational rights, statutes like the Juvenile Justice Act, and evolving constitutional norms, arguing that more nuanced legislative intervention is needed before treating such acts as criminal.
Recent Kerala High Court Judgement
In Sibin SV v. State of Kerala, a teacher was accused of caning a Class VI student with a cane. The student’s father lodged a complaint under Section 118(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (use of dangerous means to cause hurt) and Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 (cruelty to child). the court quashed criminal proceedings against a teacher who caned a seventh-grader for habitual misconduct, citing an “upside-down” dynamic in present-day classrooms. Justice C. Jayachandran emphasized that ordinary disciplinary actions do not automatically meet the threshold of criminal intent or serious harm, noting that only acts “expressly declared as an offence” in penal statutes should attract criminal liability . Though the court firmly stated that “teachers have no right to beat students,” its position hinged on the absence of criminal provisions criminalizing mild corporal discipline. In the court differentiated by reference to a distinct case involving a temporary dance instructor who struck a student with a PVC pipe, the court allowed the case to proceed not under juvenile statute but under standard IPC provisions like Section 323, highlighting that excessive or vicious punishment can fall within criminal law.
Similar cases
Similarly, the Orissa High Court, in March 2025, quashed a criminal case against a school teacher accused of corporal punishment, reiterating that disciplining a student is not an offence under Section 82 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2015. While arranging for compensation to the child’s parents, the court stressed that disciplinary council procedures not criminal courts should handle such incidents unless extreme harm is involved.
In Karnataka, in the case of Smt Savitha Gowda v. State of Karnataka Justice Hemant Chandangoudar invoked the parental consent doctrine while quashing a case alleging caning by a P.E. teacher. The court relied on precedent stating that parents implicitly authorize “reasonable punishment” by school staff. It found that the injury sustained did not reach the requisite threshold under IPC Section 324 (“voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means”) and that charges under the Juvenile Justice Act lacked sufficient basis.
Legal and Statutory Landscape
These judgments fall short of approving corporal punishment but underscore a crucial legal gap. India’s Right to Education Act, 2009 explicitly bans “physical punishment or mental harassment” in schools, prescribing disciplinary action rather than criminal prosecution. The Juvenile Justice Act and protections under the Convention on the Rights of the Child reinforce that children must be shielded from harm. Yet, none of these enactments define corporal punishment as a punishable offence unless it causes serious injury or stems from malice, unlike offences such as assault or grievous hurt under the IPC.
Judges across these cases have pointed out that, although teachers are “disentitled” to physically punish students and such behavior is incompatible with children’s dignity, current criminal statutes do not explicitly prohibit mild physical discipline. In the absence of intentional or malicious harm, courts have concluded that such acts do not satisfy criminal intent or cause “unnecessary suffering,” especially when no instrumentality beyond modulus discretion is involved .
Conclusion
The recent rulings from Kerala, Orissa, and Karnataka High Courts clearly assert that teacher-inflicted corporal punishment, provided it is moderate and lacks criminal intent, is not a crime under current Indian law. Rather than celebrating these judgments, lawmakers, educators, and policymakers should view them as a call to bridge the legal vacuum. Only through explicit legislative prohibition coupled with policy reforms promoting non-violent discipline can India ensure its schools are safe, respectful spaces where children’s rights and dignity are fully upheld.
Sources:
- https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/kerala-high-court/kerala-high-court-ruling-teachers-not-guilty-for-punishing-students-under-bns-jj-act-296933?utm_
- https://www.onmanorama.com/news/kerala/2025/07/06/kerala-high-court-corporal-punishment.amp.html?utm_
- https://odishatv.in/news/odisha/orissa-hc-imposes-rs-1l-fine-on-teacher-for-corporal-punishments-257888?utm_
- https://indiankanoon.org/doc/103428283/?utm_
More Current Affairs: https://learnproacademy.in/updates/