A teacher may be guilty of poor judgment or inappropriate corporal punishment, but that alone cannot turn classroom discipline into a Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) offence, the Supreme Court has held while quashing criminal proceedings against a schoolteacher accused of beating two minor girls.
A bench of justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Atul S Chandurkar made the observation while quashing the POCSO case against a West Bengal schoolteacher accused of beating two Class 10 girl students on their back and waist when they failed to answer questions in geography class. However, a careful reading of their statements did not show that he had committed a sexual offence punishable under Section 10.
The apex court said the teacher could have handled the situation “in a much more sensitive manner”, but the conduct alleged against him could not be treated as a sexual offence contemplated under Section 10 of the POCSO Act. “Inadequacy on the part of the appellant or resorting to corporal punishment would not attract Section 10 of the POCSO Act,” the bench said in its September 8 order. The bench said the teacher’s conduct “may not be appropriate”, particularly his resorting to corporal punishment and lack of sensitivity while dealing with girl students.
Holding that continuation of the prosecution would amount to an abuse of the process of law and cause “extreme prejudice” to the teacher, the bench set aside the Calcutta high court’s April 27 order and quashed the entire proceedings pending before the special court at Alipurduar.
A group of women teachers informed the headmaster on June 24, 2025 that some Class 10 girls had complained of being physically touched by the teacher, according to the court record. An FIR was eventually registered on July 23, 2025 under Section 10 of the POCSO Act, which deals with aggravated sexual assault. Sexual assault under Section 7 requires sexual intent accompanying physical contact. But statements of the two girls recorded by a magistrate under Section 183 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) did not, the Supreme Court found, establish such an offence.
The accused taught geography at a school in West Bengal’s Alipurduar district. A meeting was held the next day and the District Child Protection Unit was subsequently informed. Its representatives later visited the school. The counselling-cum-enquiry report recorded allegations that the male teacher beat the girls on their upper back when they were inattentive and, on another occasion, slapped them for not carrying their geography maps. The report also referred to him rubbing one girl’s back and pinching her waist, while another allegation concerned his nails touching a girl’s neck. The provision is attracted where the offence of sexual assault is committed by, among others, a member of the staff of an educational institution.
