The Kerala High Court has observed that teachers have the authority to enforce discipline and correct students by imposing reasonable corporal punishment on them.
The court made the observation while quashing a criminal case registered against Rajan, teacher of Narayana Lower Primary School, Nallur, Kozhikode, for jabbing on the shoulders of a Class II student.
Implied consent
Allowing the petition filed by the teacher, Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan observed that courts had taken a view that when a student was sent by his parent or guardian to a school, “the parent or guardian must be deemed to have given an implied consent to the child being under the discipline and control of the school authorities and to the infliction of such reasonable punishment as may be necessary for the purposes of school discipline or for correcting him”.
However, the nature and gravity of the corporal punishment inflicted by a teacher would determine whether he/she could be proceeded under the penal provisions.
Not to be condoned
“If the teacher, out of unbridled fury, excitement or rage, inflicts injuries which are of such a nature as to cause unreasonable physical suffering or harm to the child, the same cannot be condoned on any ground or on the principle of express or implied consent,” the court added.
The judge also pointed out that a school teacher, in view of his peculiar position, had the authority to enforce discipline and correct a pupil.
The courts had also taken the view that it could be assumed that when a parent entrusted a child to a teacher, he/she on his/her behalf impliedly consents for the teacher to exercise such authority over the student.
Peculiar position
The position of a teacher vis-a-vis a student was peculiar in nature and only when he inflicted such harm which was unreasonable and immoderate that he/she would be liable to be proceeded against in a criminal court.
Mathematics
The petitioner contended that he was in the process of teaching the child the nuances of mathematics and to make her alert, he jabbed on her shoulders.
The act could not be said to be one motivated by malice, the petitioner contended.
