CWP No.19607 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No. 19607 of 2010 Date of decision: 8.11.2010 Surender Batra, Advocate -----Petitioner Vs. UT, Chandigarh and others ----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present:- Mr. Atul Lakhanpal,Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rajwant Singh Chahal, Advocate for the petitioner. Adarsh Kumar Goel,J. 1. This petition has been filed as PIL for a direction to ban corporal punishment and initiate action against Vivek High School, Chandigarh for awarding punishment to its students in violation of guidelines issued by Ministry of Women and Child Development, Government of India and the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009. 2. Case set out in the petition is that the petitioner is an advocate and a public spirited person. He read a news item about children committing suicides or running away from homes due to corporal punishments in schools. He also read a news item dated 7.10.2010, Annexure P.1 motioning that 21 students of Vivek High School of 12th Class were banned for three months for indiscipline. Indiscipline alleged was posting of answer sheet in which students scored zero marks with remarks against a teacher. There was also a subsequent news item dated 21.10.2010 stating that the said students were allowed to join from 15.11.2010 in modification of the order of punishment of suspension for three months. 1 CWP No.19607 of 2010 3. According to the petitioner, suspension for period of three months was too harsh and even reduced punishment amounted to humiliation. According to National policy of education, corporal punishment is to be excluded from the education system. No child can be subjected to physical punishment or mental harassment. Ministry of Women and Child Development has also banned corporal punishment. Cruelty to a child or a juvenile is banned under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 and amended 2006). 4. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. Undisputedly, children are assets of the nation and are entitled to care and protection and all opportunities for development. Constitution of India contains special provisions against abuse of tender age of children (Article 39(e)); to provide opportunities for healthy development and protection of childhood and youth against exploitation (Article 39 (f)); free and compulsory education upto the age of 14 (Articles 45 and 21A); prohibition against employment of children in factories (Article 24). Unless facilities and opportunities are provided to children, nation will be deprived of best human resources for progress. Opportunity for education to all children is not only the right of the children but also the need of the society. International convention on rights of child has been ratified by the Government of India which envisages access to education and protection of the child from exploitation against all forms of exploitation. 6. At the same time, discipline in educational institutions and respect to the teachers has to be maintained. In the name of discipline, harsh measures may not be justified but steps can be taken to maintain discipline consistent with the dignity and freedom of the children and without affecting fair opportunities for development. These settled principles have been discussed in judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, inter-alia, in : i) Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, AIR 1997 SC 2218; 2 CWP No.19607 of 2010 ii) Gaurav Jain v. Union of India, AIR 1997 SC 3021; iii) Avinash Mehrotra v. Union of India,(2009) 6 SCC 398; iv) Controller of Examinations v. G.S. Sunder, 1993 Supp (3) SCC 82; v) Vishwa Jagriti Mission v. Central Govt.,(2001) 6 SCC 577 vi) University of Kerala v. Council of Principals of Colleges in Kerala,(2009) 15 SCC 301 ; vii) University of Kerala v. Council of Principals of Colleges, Kerala, (2009) 16 SCC 712; viii) Dr. Ambedkar Institute of Hotel Management, Nutrition & Catering Technology, Chandigarh v. Vaibhav Singh Chauhan,(2009) 1 SCC 59 . 7. Question for consideration is whether there is violation of any right in the present case. Source of information in the present case is only newspaper report. No effort is stated to have been made by the petitioner to meet the students, their parents or their school authorities or to take up the matter with the concerned higher authorities. In absence thereof, the petition can hardly be accepted as a genuine public interest petition. It appears from the newspaper report annexed to the petition that 21 students have been held to have violated discipline of the school by condemning a teacher on the facebook. The punishment which has been finally awarded is detaining students for an hour per day after school hours for community and social service. The students had to submit apology. Parents of the students agreed that the students had committed indiscipline. In absence of authentic factual basis, we do not consider it appropriate to interfere in the matter. 8. The petition is dismissed. (Adarsh Kumar Goel) Judge November 8, 2010 (Ajay Kumar Mittal) ‘gs’ Judge 3