ORDER : This petition, seeking to quash Annexure I charge-sheet, is filed by a teacher who stands implicated as an accused in Crime No.19 of 2016 of Kanjiramkulam Police Station registered under Section 324 of Indian Penal Code and Section 23 of Juvenile Justice Act (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000). The said crime was registered on a complaint that the third respondent, a minor represented in these proceedings by his mother, was beaten with a stick by the petitioner on both his hands for speaking a lie that his mathematics notebook had been lost. It is on the said basis that the crime was registered and the charge-sheet filed before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Neyyattinkara numbered as CC No.1353 of 2016. On the ground that, no offence is made out, this petition is filed for quashing the final report and the further proceedings. 2. Though the third respondent was served, there is no appearance. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. In this case the petitioner, the class teacher admits that on 8.12.2015, she gave a mild punishment with a small stick for speaking a lie and was done in the best interest of the student and to correct the child for the mistake committed. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegations are false and the petitioner, the class teacher was only exercising her responsibility as a teacher in good faith by admonishing the student for speaking a lie. There was no criminal intimidation or overt acts on her part as alleged and that the complaint was filed almost one month after the occurrence date of occurrence. 6. Learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand submitted that the statement of witnesses would show that the child was beaten with a stick and was continuously beaten till the stick broke and thus the teacher had exceeded in giving the punishment. 7. 6. Learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand submitted that the statement of witnesses would show that the child was beaten with a stick and was continuously beaten till the stick broke and thus the teacher had exceeded in giving the punishment. 7. The decisions of this Court on the issue in question are as follows:- In Abdul Vaheed v. State of Kerala (2005 KHC 535), it was held that when a student do not behave properly or act according to the Rules of a school, and if the teacher chastises him, on a bona fide intention, by giving him a 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 the student, it may not normally be brought under the penal provisions of the Code. Again in Nirmala K. v. State of Kerala and Another [2019(5)KHC 912], It was held that in view of the well settled common law position an school teacher, who is having disciplinary control over a pupil, which is for his or her own betterment and future welfare, has thus intrinsic and inherent power to enforce discipline to shape up the character and ordinary growth of the pupil and so long as the process of penal measure like caning the student is proportionate and reasonable, as is understood in the common state of affairs and the same cannot be said to be an offence. This Court relied on the decision in Rajan @ Raju v. Sub Inspector of Police, Feroke Police Station and Others [ 2018(5) KHC 967 ], wherein it was laid down that to bring home an offence under Section 323 of the IPC, the prosecution has to prove that the victim suffered from bodily pain, disease or infirmity, that the accused caused the aforesaid bodily pain and that the accused did so intentionally or with knowledge that in the process hurt would be caused. Section 23 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, will be attracted when unnecessary mental or physical suffering is caused by a person in charge or of control over the child by assaulting, abandoning, exposing or wilfully neglecting the child or by causing such act to be done. Section 23 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, will be attracted when unnecessary mental or physical suffering is caused by a person in charge or of control over the child by assaulting, abandoning, exposing or wilfully neglecting the child or by causing such act to be done. The courts have also taken the view that it can be assumed that 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. However, the nature and gravity of the corporal punishment inflicted by the teacher would determine as to whether he can be proceeded under the penal provisions. If the teacher, out of unbridled fury, excitement or rage, inflicts injuries which are of such a nature so as to cause unreasonable physical suffering or harm to the child, the same cannot be condoned on any ground or on the principle of express or implied consent. 8. Going by the principles stated in the above decisions, which are binding precedents and respecting them is the fundamental norm of judicial discipline, and on a consideration of Annexure I charge-sheet and other materials, I hold that no visible mark or injury has been caused to the child and that the teacher had not exceeded in the punishment. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor I find that the charges levelled under section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and section 23 of the Juvenile Justice Act being untenable are only to be quashed and I do so. 9. In the result, Annexure I final report and all further proceedings in CC No. 1353 of 2016 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court III, Neyyattinkara, arising from Crime No. 19 of 2016 Kanjiramkulam Police Station are hereby quashed. 10. Though I have followed the judgments of this Court and quashed the proceedings, certain developments on the issue of corporeal punishment needs a serious consideration in view of the later statutes as well as materials which have dealt with the consequences of corporal punishment at length. 11. The provision applicable in the Kerala Education Rules, 1959 (Chapter IX Rule 9 and Form 9) is extracted hereunder:- “9. Punishment Register: (1) Every School shall maintain a Punishment Register in Form 9. 11. The provision applicable in the Kerala Education Rules, 1959 (Chapter IX Rule 9 and Form 9) is extracted hereunder:- “9. Punishment Register: (1) Every School shall maintain a Punishment Register in Form 9. (2) Particulars of every punishment awarded to the pupil shall be entered in the Punishment Register.” xxxx FORM 9 (See Rule IX-9(1) REGISTER OF PUNISHMENTS INFLICTED ON PUPILS 1 Serial Number 2 Admission Number 3 Name of pupil 4 Age 5 Standard 6 A brief account of the offences for which punishment is awarded 7 Date of offence 8 Date of award of punishment 9 Nature of the punishment (full details to be given) (a) (Censure) (b) Fine – Amount to be specified (c) Suspension-Period to be specified (d) Removal 10 Remarks 11 Signature of the Headmaster 12 Date of realisation of fine 13 Initials of the Headmaster 12. A reading of the above Rule clearly shows that only censure or fine or suspension or removal from the rolls are contemplated as a punishment and that the same has to be recorded in the prescribed form. The Director of Public Instructions (since then been redesignated as Director of General Education) as early as on 08.09.2010 had issued a Circular No.QIP/54527/2010/DPI specifically prohibiting corporal punishment in schools and the educational officers were directed to ensure the implementation of the same. It also directed that the complaints are to be made to the District Educational Officer and the Deputy Director of Education and they were directed to take appropriate action. It is seen that the circular is more obeyed in its breach than observance. 13. The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as “RCFCE”) classifies corporal punishment as physical punishment, mental harassment and discrimination, and physical punishment has been ascribed the same meaning as has been given by the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child. Under the RCFCE Act, corporal punishment is violative of the right of the child to education, as well as the right to leave with dignity. According to the Section 17 of the RCECE Act, 'no child shall be subjected to physical punishment or mental harassment'. However, even this enactment is not without its limitations as it applies to only children between 6-14 years of age and excludes certain institutions from the ambit of this Act. 14. According to the Section 17 of the RCECE Act, 'no child shall be subjected to physical punishment or mental harassment'. However, even this enactment is not without its limitations as it applies to only children between 6-14 years of age and excludes certain institutions from the ambit of this Act. 14. It is worthwhile to notice Section 23 (as it stood then) of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000 and Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 23. Punishment for cruelty to juvenile or child.-Whoever, having the actual charge of or control over, a juvenile or the child, assaults, abandons, exposes or wilfully neglects the juvenile or cases or procures him to be assaulted, abandoned, exposed or neglected in a manner likely to cause such juvenile or the child unnecessary mental or physical suffering shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or fine, or with both. 75. Punishment for cruelty to child.-Whoever, having the actual charge of, or control over, a child, assaults, abandons, abuses, exposes or wilfully neglects the child or causes or procures the child to be assaulted, abandoned, abused, exposed or neglected in a manner likely to cause such child unnecessary mental or physical suffering, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years or with fine of one lakh rupees or with both: (emphasis supplied) xxxxxx Provided also that on account of the aforesaid cruelty, if the child is physically incapacitated or develops a mental illness or is rendered mentally unfit to perform regular tasks or has risk to life or limb, such person shall be punishable with rigorous imprisonment, not less than three years but which may be extended up to ten years and shall also be liable to fine of five lakhs rupees. 15. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) was adopted and opened for signature, ratification and accession by the United Nations General Assembly Resolution No.44/25 of 20 November 1989). Article 37(a) of the said Convention on the Rights of the Child, to which India is a signatory, says that no child should bear any torture, cruelty, or inhuman punishment. The United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child defines 'corporal' or 'physical' punishment as any punishment in which physical force is used and intended to cause some degree of pain or discomfort, however light. The United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child defines 'corporal' or 'physical' punishment as any punishment in which physical force is used and intended to cause some degree of pain or discomfort, however light. The UNCRC, in no uncertain terms acknowledges that; 'children are holders of human rights and acknowledges their distinct legal personality and evolving capacities'. Article 28(2) of the UNCRC indicates that the school discipline should be administered in a manner consistent with the child's human dignity and the Convention. Articles 3, 18 and 36 of the Convention deal with parental and adult responsibility in the private sphere and the right to protection from exploitation. Article 19 provides for measures to protect children against all forms of physical abuse and imposes an obligation on member states to protect children from all forms of physical or mental violence, injury or abuse. India ratified the UNCRC in 1992. In 2010, Government representatives in SAIEVAC (South Asia Initiative to End Violence Against Children) developed a national action plan to achieve prohibition, and in 2011 endorsed a report on progress towards prohibiting corporal punishment in South Asia states which included an analysis of the reforms required in India. In the third/fourth state party report to the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, 2011, the Government confirmed that corporal punishment of children is not considered an offence due to section 89 of the IPC; this was to be rectified by the drafting of a Prevention of Offences against the Child Bill which would make corporal punishment an offence. The National Policy for Children 2013, (hereinafter referred to as “2013 Policy”) adopted in April 2013, provides for protection of children from “all forms of violence” but specifically refers to corporal punishment only in connection with education i.e. in schools. The 2013 policy, in Paragraph 4.6(XV), states that in education, the state shall “ensure no child is subjected to any physical punishment or mental harassment” and “promote positive engagement to impart discipline so as to provide children with a good learning experience”. Child friendly Schools Manual developed by UNICEF (Dynamics of Theory and Practice) Chapter 2 (Protective of Children) Interventions to address these situations include training teachers and parents in non-violent discipline, as well as establishing and enforcing codes of conduct that protect children from sexual harassment, abuse, violence, bullying, physical punishment, stigma and discrimination. Child friendly Schools Manual developed by UNICEF (Dynamics of Theory and Practice) Chapter 2 (Protective of Children) Interventions to address these situations include training teachers and parents in non-violent discipline, as well as establishing and enforcing codes of conduct that protect children from sexual harassment, abuse, violence, bullying, physical punishment, stigma and discrimination. Protection Child-friendly schools have succeeded in transforming the norm in classroom discipline from one that condones verbal and physical abuse to one that calls for a 'shoutless and stickless' form of discipline. Also through CFS, a school protocol was developed for identification, reporting and referral of cases of abuse, violence and exploitation. This was approved for all schools by the Department of Education. Chapter 5 Setting Specific Recommendations in schools and other educational settings 111. Bearing in mind that all children must be able to learn free from violence, that schools should be safe and child friendly and curricula should be rights based, and also that schools provide an environment in which attitudes that condone violence can be changed and non-violent values and behaviour learned, it is recommend that States:- (a) Encourage schools to adopt and implement codes of conduct applicable to all staff and students that confront all forms of violence, taking into account gender-based stereotype and behaviour and other forms of discrimination (b) Ensure that school principals and teachers use non-violent teaching and learning strategies and adopt classroom management and disciplinary measures that are not based on fear, threats, humiliation or physical force; Chapter 6 Classroom discipline and management practices In child-friendly schools, teachers need to have the skills to apply alternative forms of discipline instead of falling back on corporal punishment and other forms of physical and verbal abuse. Teachers should be made aware of the emotional and psychological damage these practices can do to children. For example, threats or promises of rewards to girls in exchange for sexual favours are intolerable. Teachers also need to understand why violent forms of discipline such as corporal punishment are harmful to children (see Chapter 5). Teachers require training in constructive discipline practices to promote orderly and fair conditions for learning in classrooms and learning spaces. School managers, teachers and other school personnel also need training and support in human rights education that fully recognizes the importance of tolerance and peaceful conflict resolution and the significance of child participation. 16. Teachers require training in constructive discipline practices to promote orderly and fair conditions for learning in classrooms and learning spaces. School managers, teachers and other school personnel also need training and support in human rights education that fully recognizes the importance of tolerance and peaceful conflict resolution and the significance of child participation. 16. It is a matter of interest to note that a private bill named 'the Abolition of Corporal Punishment in Educational Institutions Bill, 2010, to provide for abolition of corporal punishment in educational institutions by providing protective measures against use of physical force towards children and to set forth good practice and provide stringent penalties to any person involved in corporal punishment keeping the best interest of the child and for matters connected therewith and incidental thereto was moved in the Rajya Sabha, by an eminent member from Kerala, but the same could not be passed. Corporal punishment in the Bill was defined as follows:- “(d) “corporal punishment” means physical punishment that involves deliberate infliction of pain for a mistake or act of indiscipline by a child for the purpose of disciplining or reforming the child;” 17. Several articles, which voiced dissatisfaction against corporal punishment, across the globe have gone to the extent of opining that it is those teachers who are unable to discipline their students who take recourse to physical assault. The impact that a child can have on account of the corporal punishment is huge. Some evidence shows that spanking can negatively impact the brain and cause the children to experience withdrawal. Some children might start viewing violence as an acceptable way to ensure compliance. They may also use violence to achieve the behaviour or responses they wish to see in others. All these normalises violence in tender minds. Teachers also use physical punishment because of a general lack of awareness or interest to explore options other than violence and abuse. Physical punishment scars the body and mind of a student, robbing them of dignity. All the reports which advocated banning of corporal punishment are premised on the reason that physical punishment has devastating impact on the child, impacting their thoughts, feelings and behaviours, the capacity to cope with the challenges of everyday life and finally the ability to reach the full potential. Children must not lose their rights just because they have passed through the school gates. Children must not lose their rights just because they have passed through the school gates. Allowing teachers to lose control over their behaviour while preaching restraint to a child is surprisingly intriguing and leaves the child in an uncomfortable unpredictability more so when a child is the very soul that a teacher is meant to serve and protect 18. The role of a teacher in maintaining the discipline and in preparing a new generation of citizens to succeed in a competitive world like the present one, cannot be undermined. They must adapt to the evolving trends and standards to deal with the individual nature of the children. Though this Court has held in the decisions mentioned above, that reasonable force can be used, the terms like reasonable force are ambiguous and capable of being misinterpreted and misused. Teachers as well as parents need to note the difference between the correction, discipline and punishment, and that all corporal punishment is outlawed under the later enactments. 19. Article 21 of the Constitution of India that protects the right to life and dignity of the children is infringed when corporal punishment, which amounts to abuse militates against the freedom and dignity of a child, is meted out. It also interferes with a child's right to education because fear of corporal punishment makes children more likely to avoid or atleast dislike going to school. It is pertinent to note that Article 21A of the Constitution of India directs the States to provide free and compulsory education to all children of the age of 6 to 14 and this fundamental right has been operationanilised with the enactment of Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009., in which there is a ban on corporal punishment. Additionally, Article 39(e) which directs the State to work progressively to ensure that the tender age of the children are not abused, and Article 39(f) which directs the State to work progressively to ensure that the children are given opportunities and facility to develop in a healthy manner and in conditions of freedom and dignity and that childhood and youth are protected against exploitation and against moral and material abandonment, also come into operation. I have no hesitation to hold that the State has a duty to imbibe the spirit of all these for the betterment of the children, the building blocks of our nation, and to scrupulously implement the same. The State cannot forget that even animals are protected from cruelty, which is again a must, and I shudder to think that children are worse off. 20. In view of all that is stated above, judicial intervention is warranted as this Court is the protector of the rights. The State is obliged to ensure an environment free of corporal punishment. The High Courts of Madras and Delhi have also noticed the need for ban on corporal punishment at schools. The Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) has also issued a Circular No.19/2017 dated 12.09.2017 for the safety of children in school and in the said circular, inter alia, makes provision for ban on corporal punishment at school. 21. In the aforesaid circumstances, there will be a direction to the Principal Secretary to Government, General Education Department as well as to the Director of General Education, Thiruvananthapuram to take such steps to ensure that the Circular No. No.QIP/54527/2010/DPI, dated 08.09.2010 is implemented in the schools in the State of Kerala, both in private and public sector and also to file an action taken report before this Court within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Registry is directed to forward a copy of this order to the Principal Secretary to Government, General Education Department as well as to the Director of General Education, Thiruvananthapuram, for compliance. The above Crl.M.C. is allowed with the above directions.