Use of cane for discipline not an offence under BNS: Kerala HC

The Kerala High Court has ruled that a teacher’s use of a cane to discipline students does not amount to the use of a dangerous weapon under Section 118 (voluntarily causing hurt or grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

Justice C Pratheep Kumar delivered the ruling while allowing a petition filed by a school teacher and quashing the criminal case registered against him for allegedly beating a student with a cane.

The Court underlined that teachers hold implied authority to impose reasonable corporal punishment in good faith, so long as they do not act with malicious intent to harm a student.

"From the above decisions, it is clear that the school teacher, in view of his peculiar position, has authority to enforce discipline and correct a pupil who is put in his charge. When a parent entrusts a child to a teacher, he on his behalf impliedly consents for the teacher to exercise over the student such authority.

"When a student does not behave properly or act according to the rules of a school, and if the teacher gives him corporal punishment for improving his character and conduct, the court has to ascertain whether the said act of the teacher was bona fide or not. If it is found that he had acted with a good intention, only to improve or correct the student, he is within his limits," the Court held.

The accused, a 36-year-old teacher from a school in Vengaloor, had been charged under Section 118(1) of the BNS and Section 75 (punishment for cruelty to a child) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act (JJ Act).

According to the prosecution, the incident took place on February 10, 2025, when the teacher allegedly struck the student on the buttocks with a cane inside the staff room.

While examining the case records, the Court noted that although the alleged incident occurred on February 10, the First Information Report (FIR) was registered only on February 13.

Medical documents showed that the child was taken to the Community Health Centre in Vizhinjam on the same day, complaining of pain in the buttocks. However, the wound certificate stated that the doctor found no external injuries.

The key question before the Court was whether the teacher’s alleged conduct would attract the penal provisions under the BNS and the JJ Act.

Referring to the statutory framework, the Court observed that for an offence under Section 118(1) of the BNS to be established, the instrument or method used must be inherently dangerous. In this case, it held that a cane does not fall within that category, and therefore the charge under Section 118(1) could not be sustained.

The Court also examined Section 75 of the JJ Act, which deals with cruelty to children. Citing earlier rulings, including Jomi v State of Kerala, the Court reiterated that teachers occupy a distinct position of trust and responsibility.

It observed that when parents send their children to school, they implicitly permit teachers to exercise reasonable disciplinary control, including limited corporal punishment, provided it is administered in good faith and without any intention to cause harm.

"From the evidence available on record, it appears that the petitioner has only used minimum corporal punishment for enforcing discipline in the school and there is no evidence to show that he had any guilty intention to cause any hurt to the defacto complainant or to treat the defacto complainant with cruelty. In the above circumstances, no useful purpose will be served in continuing the proceedings against the petitioner," the Court ruled.

In view of the absence of any material indicating malafide intent, the Court held that continuing the prosecution would amount to an abuse of the legal process.

Accordingly, the High Court quashed all further proceedings in the sessions case pending before the Additional Sessions Court (Atrocities & Sexual Violence against Women and Children) in Thiruvananthapuram.

Advocates M R Sarin, P S Santhoshkumar (Karumkulam), Parvathi Krishna, Aji S and Midhun Soman appeared for the petitioner, while Senior Public Prosecutor Breez M S represented the State.
(With inputs from Bar and Bench)