Teacher's reprimand to student for indiscipline can’t be abetment of suicide: Supreme Court

It is not uncommon that teachers reprimand a student for not being attentive or not being up to the mark in studies, the bench said

The Supreme Court on Tuesday said a teacher's reprimand to student for indiscipline, leading him to end his life, can't be termed as abetment to suicide.

“The disciplinary measures adopted by a teacher, reprimanding a student for his indiscipline 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," a bench of Justices S Abdul Nazeer and Krishna Murari said.

It is not uncommon that teachers reprimand a student for not being attentive or not being up to the mark in studies or for bunking classes or not attending the school, the bench added.

"It is a solemn duty of a teacher to instill discipline in the students. A simple act of reprimand of a student for his behaviour by a teacher, who is under moral obligations to inculcate the good qualities in a student, would definitely not amount to instigation or intentionally aid to the commission of a suicide by a student," the bench said.

The top court set aside a Rajasthan High Court's judgment of April 30, 2019, which refused to quash an FIR lodged on May 2, 2018 against Geo Varghese, the physical training teacher of a famous school at Jaipur after a class IX student died by suicide on April 26, 2018 leaving a note, blaming him for it due to mental harassment and insult.

“Insofar as, the suicide note is concerned, despite our minute examination, all we can say is that suicide note is rhetoric document, penned down by an immature mind," the bench said.

The bench pointed out 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.

The boy who regularly bunked classes, was initially reprimanded by the teacher him but on account of repeated acts, he brought this fact to the knowledge of the principal, who called the parents on telephone to come to the school.

The bench said it is not only a moral duty of a teacher but one of the legally assigned task 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.

"‘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.

Watch the latest DH Videos here: