Karnataka High Court refuses to quash POCSO case against KG teacher.
In a recent case Titled Thahseen Begum @ Tasi v. State of Karnataka , a kindergarten teacher who used to strip students of their pants and lock them in dark rooms as a form of punishment was accused of violating the rigorous Protection of Children from Sexual Offenses (POCSO) Act.
A teacher must assist the students and not inflict emotional or bodily harm on them, Mentoring the pupil, tendering the age, and tendering the mentoring style are all responsibilities of the teacher. It is wrong for a teacher to traumatize a kid, regardless of the method used, whether it be psychological or physical. Teachers tormenting students as a method of discipline would have disastrous psychological effects, especially on children.” The judge made a note.
According to the court, children who experience harsh discipline from teachers while they are young have behavioral problems.
“When a teacher behaves violently or aggressively toward them, the students they teach frequently have emotional and behavioral problems, and their cognitive capacities decline, which has long-lasting repercussions on a child’s psychological make-up and negatively affects the child’s academic performance. Any educator who is aggressive toward a pupil using any manner is wrong. Keep in mind that the saying “spare the rod, spoil the child” has changed to “spare the rod, instruct the child.” “The command was given.
The judge was intrigued in the plea the nursery school teacher had entered into after being accused of bullying the young children. According to the First Information Report, the instructor was charged with regularly hitting the complainant’s daughter, locking her in dark spaces, and stripping her in front of other students and school personnel as per FIR.
The instructor defended herself by arguing that neither the POCSO Act nor the Indian Penal Code (IPC) could be utilized to bring her to justice because she was only using punishment to teach the students good behavior.
High Court held that the petitioner’s actions toward the child, which have been classified as an offence punishable under Section 12 of the Act, are discovered, they are unquestionably impolite, unforgivable, and unbecoming for a teacher who works with a girl student under the age of five, unless the petitioner can demonstrate otherwise in a formal trial. Petition Dismissed.
