Ernakulam, March 10, 2025 – In a significant judgment, the Kerala High Court ruled that a preliminary inquiry is mandatory before registering any criminal case against a teacher in connection with their actions inside an educational institution. The order was passed by Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan while granting bail to a schoolteacher accused of assaulting a student.
Case Background
The bail application (B.A. No. 2937 of 2025) was filed by Sibin S.V, a 36-year-old teacher from Thiruvananthapuram, against whom a criminal case was registered under Section 118(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhitha, 2023 (BNS), and Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (JJ Act).
According to the prosecution, on February 10, 2025, at around 12:30 p.m., the teacher allegedly assaulted a sixth-standard student using a cane. The alleged assault was reportedly due to personal enmity, as the student had spread rumors about the teacher being responsible for an accident that claimed his son’s life. The complaint was filed by the student’s parent, leading to the teacher’s prosecution.
Key Legal Issues
- Whether criminal cases can be initiated against teachers without a preliminary inquiry?
- What constitutes reasonable discipline within educational institutions?
- Balancing student rights and maintaining discipline in schools.
- Scope of protection under Section 173(3) of BNS for professionals like teachers.
Court’s Observations
Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan strongly emphasized the crucial role teachers play in shaping future generations and warned against indiscriminate criminal proceedings that could demoralize the teaching community. He stated:
“Teachers are the unsung heroes of our society. They shape the minds, hearts, and souls of our future generation. No steps should be taken to diminish their morale because they are the backbone of our future.”
He further observed that registering criminal cases against teachers without proper verification can have a chilling effect on education. The judgment cited earlier rulings such as Rajan @ Raju v. Sub Inspector of Police (2018) and Geetha Manoharan v. State of Kerala (2020), which recognized a teacher’s implied authority to discipline students within reasonable limits.
Justice Kunhikrishnan noted:
“In olden days, the mere presence of a teacher ensured discipline. But today, teachers are working under the constant threat of criminal cases, which is dangerous for the future of education.”
The court also referred to the growing trend of student misconduct, including drug abuse and violence, emphasizing that teachers should be given a free hand in enforcing discipline.
Court’s Decision
The Kerala High Court granted bail to Sibin S.V., citing that the alleged offense carried a maximum punishment of three years under BNS and five years under the JJ Act, making it a fit case for bail. The following conditions were imposed:
- The petitioner must appear before the Investigating Officer within two weeks for interrogation.
- If the police decide to arrest him after interrogation, he shall be released on a bail bond of ₹50,000 with two solvent sureties.
- The petitioner must not influence witnesses or interfere with the investigation.
Mandatory Preliminary Inquiry for Teachers
A significant takeaway from the judgment is the directive to the Kerala State Police Chief to issue a circular mandating a preliminary inquiry before registering criminal cases against teachers. The court invoked Section 173(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhitha, which allows a preliminary inquiry in cases where the alleged offense is punishable with three to seven years of imprisonment.
The judgment stated:
“If a complaint is received against a teacher, police authorities must conduct a preliminary inquiry within 14 days. A teacher shall not be arrested during this period unless a prima facie case is established.”
The court further ruled that teachers should not face criminal prosecution for minor disciplinary actions taken in good faith and remarked that carrying a cane in schools, even if not used, could serve as a psychological deterrent against indiscipline.
Legal Community’s Reaction
Senior Advocate M.R. Sarin, appearing for the petitioner, argued that the case was fabricated and aimed at tarnishing the teacher’s reputation. He welcomed the judgment, stating that it would protect teachers from frivolous complaints.
On the other hand, Public Prosecutor Noushad K.A., representing the State, opposed the bail plea, arguing that the offense was serious and required strict action.
Conclusion
This judgment sets a precedent for safeguarding teachers from arbitrary criminal cases while ensuring that genuine cases of misconduct are thoroughly investigated. The Kerala High Court’s directive on mandatory preliminary inquiry aims to strike a balance between protecting students’ rights and upholding the dignity of the teaching profession. The State Police Chief has been directed to implement the order within one month, ensuring uniformity in handling such cases.
This ruling is expected to have far-reaching implications on the education sector and could influence similar decisions in other jurisdictions across India.
