A Big NO to Physical Punishment: Chhattisgarh High Court Bans Corporal Punishment!

Court’s Landmark Ruling: Corporal Punishment Outlawed in Chhattisgarh Schools

Discipline cannot be effectively achieved through corporal punishment; instead, fostering a supportive and respectful environment leads to lasting behavioral change. A study by Childline India Foundation (2009-2011) found that corporal punishment was present in nearly 95% of 198 schools across 11 states, despite its prohibition. Only 6% of the government and 4% of private schools were free from such practices which highlights a troubling trend, as corporal punishment is also prevalent globally, with around 60% of children aged 2–14 experiencing regular physical punishment at home. These findings prompt us to question the efficacy and ethics of using physical discipline.

According to the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act (RTE Act), 2009 no child should face physical punishment or mental harassment, ensuring that schools offer a safe and supportive learning environment. In a landmark decision, the Chhattisgarh High Court declared that corporal punishment in schools is fundamentally opposed to educational values. This decision represents a turning point in how the judiciary perceives child discipline, reinforcing a firm commitment to protecting children's rights and cultivating a supportive educational environment. By rejecting physical punishment, the court advocates for a more humane and effective approach to teaching, emphasizing that education should be a beacon of respect and positivity.

On July 29, the Chhattisgarh High Court denounced the use of physical violence in schools in the name of discipline or education. The court presided over by Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, dismissed a plea filed by a female instructor accused of abetting a student's suicide. The bench highlighted that corporal punishment as a means of reform is incompatible with educational values, stating that such methods are intrinsically harsh and undesirable. The Chhattisgarh High Court declared on July 29 that corporal punishment violates a child's right to life under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, arguing that children deserve the same respect as adults. The court denied a petition filed by Sister Mercy (also known as Elizabeth Jose), a Carmel Convent School instructor accused of aiding a Class VI student's suicide. The student's suicide note implicated Jose, which led to her imprisonment. The court denied Jose's motion to dismiss the FIR and allegations against her.

The Chhattisgarh High Court remarked that the right to life under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution includes not just survival but also dignified and meaningful living. It stressed that being a youngster does not reduce one's humanity when compared to adults. The court criticized the use of physical violence in schools as a form of discipline, arguing that children, as precious national resources, deserve compassion and care rather than cruelty. It concluded that corporal punishment is incompatible with educational principles. Jose's counsel contended that on the day of the event, Jose had just scolded the student and taken her ID card, as per customary school protocols. The lawyer argued that Jose had no intention of causing harm and chastised the police for filing an FIR based solely on the suicide note, without conducting a preliminary inquiry. In contrast, the state counsel opposed the petition to dismiss the charges, claiming that testimonials from classmates under Section 161 of the CrPC showed that Jose's acts were so harsh that they caused significant mental distress to the kids.

The High Court dismissed the petition, stating that it was unable to analyze the accused's defense or weigh evidence at this time and noted that, under Section 528 of the BNSS, it could only consider the prosecution's prima facie case. It said that contested factual matters could not be settled unless proof was supplied. The court found no grounds to overturn the charge sheet and FIR filed against the petitioner.

Editor’s Note: 
 

The Chhattisgarh High Court's decision is an important step toward aligning educational practices with current understandings of child psychology and human rights. It sends a clear message that educational practices must prioritize children's dignity and well-being. By rejecting corporal punishment, the court promotes the idea that education is more than just academic learning; it is also about creating a courteous and supportive environment in which children can grow. This decision establishes a precedent for other jurisdictions to examine and alter old procedures, resulting in a more progressive and humane educational environment. Schools need to adopt alternative methods of discipline that focus on positive reinforcement, conflict resolution, and behavioral support rather than punitive measures.

Skoobuzz firmly condemns corporal punishment and fully supports the Chhattisgarh High Court's decision to reject such practices. We believe in fostering a nurturing and respectful educational environment, where every child is valued and protected.