Case Title: Sister Mercy vs State of Chhattisgarh
A division bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal of the Chhattisgarh High Court emphasized that subjecting students to physical violence or corporal punishment under the guise of discipline is inhumane and has no place in the realm of education.
In a notable stance, the Court underscored the importance of delineating acceptable boundaries for disciplinary actions while declining to dismiss a criminal case involving a teacher from a convent school, who was implicated in a student’s tragic suicide note.
The bench said that the age of a child does not diminish their humanity in comparison to adults.
The Court firmly asserted that corporal punishment infringes upon a child’s dignity and must not be tolerated within educational practices.
The bench held that the Corporal punishment violates Article 21 of the Constitution.
“It also appears to us that corporal punishment is not keeping with child’s dignity. Besides, it is cruel to subject the child to physical violence in school in the name of discipline or education. Child being a precious national resource is to be nurtured and attended with tenderness and care and not with cruelty. Subjecting the child to corporal punishment for reforming him cannot be part of education…it causes incalculable harm to him, in his body and mind”.
The bench deliberated on a petition seeking to dismiss a case of abetting suicide lodged against a Christian Catholic nun, who served as a teacher at a convent school in Surguja district.
The petitioner’s involvement stemmed from being mentioned in a suicide note discovered following the tragic death of a sixth-grade student.
Reportedly, the petitioner reprimanded the student and some peers for skipping class, resulting in the student’s suicide.
The nun defended her actions, stating that she merely confiscated their student IDs, following standard disciplinary procedures. Moreover, her legal counsel argued that the suicide note lacked clarity regarding the teacher’s implication.
In contrast, the State contended that student testimonies indicated the petitioner’s actions caused severe mental distress to the students.
Emphasizing that it was not within its purview to ascertain the veracity of the allegations at the current juncture under Section 528 (quashing of FIR) of the Bharatiya Naragrik Surakhsha Sanhita (BNSS), the Court stated that resolving factual disputes necessitated presenting evidence to support the accused’s defense.
Consequently, the Court dismissed the plea to quash the case, underscoring the need for a comprehensive examination of evidence to substantiate the accused’s position.
