Why Aren’t Schools Prosecuted for Crimes on Kids in Their Care?

Experts say schools should be charged under Section 75 of Juvenile Justice Act, 2015. But that’s not being done.

(Photo: Harsh Sahani/ The Quint)

In the past two months, four different incidents in schools in Delhi-NCR have shaken society – a 4-year-old sexually assaulted by school teachers inside the school’s washroom; the murder of a 7-year-old by a 16-year-old student inside a washroom in Ryan International school; an 11-year-old sexually abused by school staff inside school washroom in Greater Noida; and a 4-year-old sexually abused by her classmate inside the school’s washroom in Delhi’s Dwarka.

In the context of school safety becoming a serious concern, these incidents beg the question – should schools be held responsible for the lapses on their watch? Are they?

The answer to the first question can be found in the landmark judgment by the Juvenile Justice Board in 2017. Accessed by The Quint, it outlines a case in which a school Principal was sentenced to two months of imprisonment with a Rs 2.5 lakh fine for ill-treatment of a student. As for the second, it’s clear that schools are largely escaping accountability.

According to legal experts, it is essential that Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice Act 2015 be invoked to prosecute schools – but that is not what is happening.

Among the above cases, it was only in the Ryan murder case that police invoked Section 75 of JJ Act in the FIR.

The JJB Judgment That Makes Schools Accountable

In 2012, parents of a 7-year-old filed a complaint with the police that their child was ill-treated by the school administration and ‘confined by the school management throughout the school hours on 24 April 2012’ in order to pressurise parents to withdraw their child from the school.

The Juvenile Justice Board said:

“Instead of keeping her in the class with her classmates, she was wrongly confined to various other places in the school where neither children was [sic] present nor any activity was going on. She was not even sent to dining hall to have a [sic] breakfast and lunch with her classmates.”

The JJB punished the school Principal and a school teacher under Section 23 of The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000.

Citing the section in the judgment, the Board ordered the school to pay Rs 2.5 lakh in compensation, and the Principal was jailed for two months, on the following grounds:

“A child who leaves the custody of his parents and is in the custody of school authorities, the charge over the child is of the school and not of the parents. The persons who are managing the school will be equally responsible for the child as the actual custody is of the school authorities.”

Section 23 of The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 is what became Section 75 of Juvenile Justice Act of 2015, after amendment.

In the amended Act, the quantum of imprisonment increased from six months to a term which may extend to three years.

It Takes a Murder to Reluctantly Invoke Sec 75?

In the Ryan International School murder case, where 7-year-old student, Pradyumn Thakur, was killed inside the school’s washroom, the Haryana Police invoked Section 75 of Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 in the FIR, along with other charges.

The Haryana Police even arrested two staff members of Ryan International School, who are currently out on bail. The owners and CEO of the school are on anticipatory bail. But the police didn’t do it of their own accord. According to Pradyumn’s family’s lawyer:

The Haryana Police didn’t invoke Section 75 on the day they registered the case. They added the section on the second day after they were pressurised by the family to take action against the school. Only after the addition of this section did the owners of Ryan International School get apprehensive and move the court for anticipatory bail.

Sushil Tekriwal, Defence Lawyer for Pradyumn’s Family

Sexual Assault on Four-Year-Old in Kolkata School... Not Enough for Sec 75

On 1 December, two school teachers from the renowned GD Birla Education Centre in Kolkata were arrested under Section 4 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 for sexually assaulting a four-year-old student.

These two men were PT teachers who lured the child into the toilet by offering her chocolates, and then sexually assaulted her.

As per CBSE guidelines, all schools have to install CCTV cameras inside the school. But this school had none. The Principal of the school tried to get away by saying that the camera would be installed the same month.

The Kolkata Police has invoked Section 4 and 6 of POCSO Act to prosecute the two teachers, which says:

(Photo: Harsh Sahani/ The Quint)

(Photo: Harsh Sahani/ The Quint)

But since the child was in the custody of the school when the incident happened, why was Section 75 of JJ Act not invoked?

11-Year-Old Sexually Abused for 5 Years – No Sec 75

A 11-year-old school student was sexually abused by a member of school staff for 5 years in a Greater Noida school.

The UP Police registered a case under Section 377 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of POCSO Act, 2012.

Like Section 4 of POCSO of 2012, Section 3 deals with penetrative sexual assault on a child. In this case too, these sections can only prosecute the offender who abused the child and not the school, say experts. Juvenile Justice Board lawyer Ashish Kumar said:

The school should be charged under Section 75 of JJ Act for two reasons. Firstly, the incident occurred inside the school. Secondly, negligence on the part of the school cannot be ruled out because the child was abused for 5 years.

Ashish Kumar, Juvenile Justice Board Lawyer

Four-Year-Old Sexually Assaulted by Classmate, Still No Sec 75

An FIR was registered when a mother of a 4-year-old girl filed a complaint that her child was sexually assaulted by her 4-year-old classmate inside a classroom in Delhi.

The Delhi Police registered a case under Sections 4 and 21 of POCSO Act 2012. We have already referred to Section 4 earlier, here is Section 21.

(Photo: Harsh Sahani/ The Quint)

According to experts, in this case, the police invoked Section 21 because the parent had clearly stated in her complaint that she informed the school authorities about the incident, but they did nothing.

Like previous cases, this case too is fit for Section 75 of JJ Act, 2015, but it was not invoked by the police.

Why are police shielding schools in these grave cases of negligence and abuse, when the fact that all of them occurred on school premises, under school authority, is not in dispute? It is a well-known fact that many schools are owned by powerful politicians and corporates – can India afford to let the problem of influence-peddling leave its children unprotected?