Mindset of teachers must undergo a paradigm shift in disciplining adolescent children: Karnataka High Court

High Court of Karnataka declines to interfere with criminal case against teachers for abetting student suicide, calls for paradigm shift.

Observing that the “myopic or parochial mindset of teachers must undergo a paradigm shift” in disciplining adolescent children, the High Court of Karnataka on Friday (July 5) declined to interfere with the criminal case registered against two teachers for abetting the suicide of a girl student by allegedly harassing and threatening her, in the guise of enforcing discipline, for talking with a boy of the same school.

“Boys and girls are in the same classroom; if they talk to each other or become friends, it is ununderstandable as to how such acts could become subversive of discipline,” the court wondered by expressing a hope that this case becomes “an eye-opener towards such paradigm shift”.

Justice M. Nagaprasanna made these observations while dismissing the petition filed by Roopesha, 34, a drawing teacher, and Sadananda, 44, a physical training teacher, with a private school in Dharmasthala in Dakshina Kannada district.

The case was registered in February against them under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, on the complaint given by the girl’s mother, and the dying declaration of the victim.

Pointing out that enforcement of discipline has dual connotations, one positive and the other negative, the court said, “The positive method of disciplining a child is only through motivation; the negative of it is in the manner that has become the subject matter of the present crime.”

The victim, the court said, was sought to be chided not for any indiscipline or any act that was subversive of any laid-down discipline in the school, but for asking her to stop talking to a fellow male student.

Meanwhile, the court made it clear that its observations are limited to deciding this petition, and they should not influence either the investigation or the pending proceeding.