Summary
The Chairman of the managing committee of a school had been summoned under Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 after a nursery child was allegedly sexually assaulted by a classmate, on the footing that CCTV guidelines had not been implemented. The Court set the summons aside: Section 75 reaches only a person who has the actual charge of, or control over, the victim child, and control over the management of an institution is not control over every child studying in it.
Issues
- Whether the Chairman of the managing committee that runs a school can be proceeded against under Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 on the allegation that CCTV cameras were not installed as required by the Directorate of Education's guidelines.
- Whether the words 'actual charge of, or control over, a child' in Section 75 refer to the victim child, and whether control over the management of the institution satisfies them.
Provisions considered
- Section 75, Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015The section was quoted and read plainly: punishment for cruelty requires that the accused had either the actual charge of the child or control over the child, and 'child' means the victim of the offence. The Chairman of the managing committee of a school running classes from KG to 12th could not be said to have the actual charge of, or control over, all the children; moral responsibility of the management is not the test. Even taking the prosecution case as correct, Section 75 could not be applied to the appellant. (¶¶ 7, 8, 9)
Held
- On a plain reading of the first part of Section 75 of the JJ Act, a person can be punished for cruelty to a child only if he is shown to have either the actual charge of the child or control over the child; the reference to the child is to the victim of the offence. (¶ 8)
- The Chairman of the managing committee of an institution that runs a school from KG to the 12th standard cannot even be alleged to have the actual charge of, or control over, all the children studying there. Control over the management of the institution does not confer control over every child in the school. The moral responsibility of the school's management is not relevant to the applicability of Section 75; the provision cannot be applied unless the accused had the actual charge of, or control over, the victim child. (¶ 8)
- Taking the case of the State and of the complainant as correct, Section 75 could by no stretch be applied against the appellant; the Special Court's summoning order and the High Court's order dismissing the revision were set aside. (¶ 9)
- The findings were confined to examining the appellant's case and have no bearing on the pending case before the Special Court against the other accused (the Principal, two teachers and the Vice-Chairman), all questions in that regard being left open. (¶¶ 3, 10)
Result
Appeal allowed; the Special Court's summoning order dated 24/12/2020 and the High Court's order dated 18/11/2022 set aside as against the appellant; observations confined to the appellant and all questions in the pending case before the Special Court left open.