E-Paper
Teacher booked for abetment to suicide for reprimanding student gets SC shield
Quashing a FIR against a Jaipur teacher, the Supreme Court held that a simple act of reprimand of students for indiscipline by a teacher would definitely not amount to instigation or abetment to suicide.
NEW DELHI: Reprimanding a student for indiscipline cannot amount to instigating a student for suicide, the Supreme Court held on Tuesday, accepting a Jaipur teacher’s request to cancel the First Information Report (FIR) registered against him in 2018 for abetment to suicide after a Class 9 student died by suicide following the teacher’s reprimand for bunking classes.
“A simple act of reprimand of a student for his behaviour or indiscipline by a teacher, who is under moral obligations to inculcate the good qualities of a human being in a student would definitely not amount to instigation or intentionally aid to the commission of a suicide by a student,” the bench of justices S Abdul Nazeer and Krishna Murari said.
In 2019, the Rajasthan high court rejected the teacher’s petition to cancel the criminal case registered against him the previous year. The teacher was also arrested in this case in 2018.
Geo Varghese, a physical education teacher with Jaipur’s St Xavier’s School, was also a member of its disciplinary committee.
The suicide note found from the child did not name the teacher, but the police lodged the criminal case on a complaint by the parents who blamed him for causing mental harassment to the child.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday quashed the criminal case registered on May 2, 2018.
“Spare the rod and spoil the child, an old saying may have lost its relevance in present days and corporal punishment to the child is not recognised by law but that does not mean that a teacher or school authorities have to shut their eyes to any indiscipline act of a student,” the bench said.
The student was caught bunking classes by the teacher twice on April 19 and April 25, 2018, and let off with a warning. When this action persisted, the teacher brought the matter to the notice of the Principal who called the parents the next day. No further overt act was attributed to the teacher.
Justice Krishna Murari, writing the judgment for the bench said, “if the person committing suicide is hypersensitive and the allegations attributed to the accused is otherwise not ordinarily expected to induce a similarly-situated person to take the extreme step of committing suicide, it would be unsafe to hold the accused guilty of abetment of suicide. Thus, what is required is an examination of every case on its own facts and circumstances and keeping in consideration the surrounding circumstances as well, which may have bearing on the alleged action of the accused and the psyche of the deceased.”
A mere allegation of harassment of the deceased by another person would not be sufficient in itself to constitute an offence under Section 306, the bench said, adding that there must be an allegation of either direct or indirect act of incitement to the commission of the offence of suicide.
The bench also noted that a teacher is under a solemn duty to instil discipline in the students, and it is not uncommon for teachers to reprimand a student for not being attentive or not being up to the mark in studies, for bunking classes or not attending the school.
“The disciplinary measures adopted by a teacher or other authorities of a school, reprimanding a student for his indiscipline, in our considered opinion, would not tantamount to provoking a student to commit suicide unless there are repeated specific allegations of harassment and insult deliberately without any justifiable cause or reason,” the bench said.
Further, the teacher has a legally assigned duty under Section 24(e) of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 to hold regular meetings with the parents and guardians and apprise them about the regularity in attendance, ability to learn, progress made in learning and any other act or relevant information about the child, the judgment said.
The court after examining the suicide note observed that the child had thanked the teacher in question, and it suggested a “hypersensitive temperament” of an immature mind, the bench said,
“A criminal trial is not exactly a pleasant experience and the appellant who is a teacher would certainly suffer great prejudice if he has to face prosecution on absurd allegations of irrelevant nature.”
At the same time, the court shared its sympathies with the parents of the victim but said, “Our sympathies and the pain and suffering of the complainant, cannot translate into a legal remedy, much less a criminal prosecution.”
