The Hans India: New Delhi: Tuesday,
July 26, 2016.
The Kendriya
Vidyalaya Sanghatan is a very big academic institution in India catering to
educational needs of central government employees, maintaining high standards.
The teachers are trained not to inflict unreasonable physical punishments on
the children.
Children have
every right to pressure-free and punishment-less learning atmosphere. Compared
to several corporate, private coaching shops, the KVS has made sincere efforts
to eliminate corporal punishments from its schools. There was an RTI demand for
information about physical assault on student by teacher.
An applicant
wanted details of his disciplinary action against his son-in-law, a teacher in
KVS for beating a student. The CPIO
denied it considering it as third party information. When the First Appellate
Authority consulted the teacher concerned on disclosure, and as he objected, he
also denied the information.
The case
reached the CIC. Applicant says that his daughter does not want to give custody
of children to this teacher. He wanted to produce the action taken report
against him. The Commission noted this motive. The KVS explained that after an
inquiry, his two increments were cut, and then he was transferred to a
different school.
The CIC held
that considering the disciplinary action against a teacher for corporal
punishment as personal and treating the disclosure of this as third-party
information is not justified. This information should be provided by the public
authority on its own as mandated by Section 4(1)(d), which says: Every public authority shall....(d) provide
reasons for its administrative or quasi judicial decisions to affected persons.
(c) publish all relevant facts while formulating important policies or
announcing the decisions which affect public.
It is the
duty of the KVS, an important educational public authority, to have a policy
regarding elimination of corporal punishment, and that should be announced all
over its branches and official website. It is a legal mandate and in the
interests of children, their education and future of the nation.
The
quasi-judicial decision in punishing the teacher for assaulting a child should
be informed along with reasons to the students who are affected in general and
the victim of that assault, or his family, in particular. The KVS has to report
to the Commission whether they have informed the victim or his family about
this quasi-judicial decision.
The KVS also
shall inform its administrative policy that in the face of proven conduct of
teacher inflicting injuries on child, teacher shall be transferred to the
school. But transferring such a teacher to a different school without
motivating him against such wrongs will lead to similar incidents in the school
where he was transferred.
It is not
known how the teacher was motivated by the KVS. While the Section 4 of RTI Act
imposes an obligation on KVS to voluntarily disclose, they denied the
information citing the Section 8(1)(j), which cannot be invoked in these facts
and circumstances. The text of Section 8(1)(j) is as follows: 8(1)(j)...information
which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has not
relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause
unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public
Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate
authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest
justifies the disclosure of such information...
Even if
section 8(1)(j) is assumed to be invoked, the school should have considered
that imposing corporal punishment on
children is against several laws including the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000,
i.e., a public wrong, its disclosure has relationship with public activity and
it will be in public interest, the revelation of which would not cause
unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual, besides larger public
interest is involved in disclosure only.
8(2)
Notwithstanding anything in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923) nor any
of the exemptions permissible in accordance with sub section (1), a public
authority may allow access to information, if public interest in disclosure
outweighs the harm to the protected interests.
Even if the
Section 8(2) is brought in, the disclosure should have been the right course in
comparative public interest. Corporal punishment in schools in India is a
serious problem. The National Commission for Protection of Rights of Children
(NCPRC) has issued comprehensive guidelines, which the KVS is expected to
follow.
The United
Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child defines “corporal” or “physical”
punishment as any punishment in which physical force is used and intended to
cause some degree of pain or discomfort, however light. Most involves hitting
(“smacking,” “slapping,” “spanking”) children, with the hand or with an
implement – a whip, stick, belt, shoe, wooden spoon, etc.
But it can
also involve, for example, kicking, shaking or throwing children, scratching,
pinching, biting, pulling hair or boxing ears, forcing children to stay in
uncomfortable positions, burning, scalding or forced ingestion (for example,
washing children’s mouths out with soap or forcing them to swallow hot spices).
In the view of the Committee, corporal punishment is invariably degrading.
In addition,
there are other non-physical forms of punishment that are also cruel and
degrading and thus incompatible with the Convention. These include, for
example, punishment which belittles, humiliates, denigrates, scapegoats,
threatens, scares or ridicules the child.
Article 28(2)
of UNCRC requires the State parties to “take all appropriate measures to ensure
that school discipline is administered in a manner consistent with the child’s
human dignity and in conformity with the present Convention.”
Similarly,
Article 29(1) (b) of the UN Convention emphasises that the “State parties agree
that the education of the child shall be directed to the development of respect
for human rights and fundamental freedoms, and for the principles enshrined in
the Charter of the United Nations”.
Further,
Article 37(a) of UNCRC requires the State parties to ensure that “no child
shall be subjected to torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or
punishment”. This is complemented by Article 19(1) of the Convention, which
requires States to, “Take all appropriate legislative, administrative, social
and educational measures to protect the child from all forms of physical or
mental violence, injury or abuse, neglect or negligent treatment, maltreatment
or exploitation, including sexual abuse, while in the care of parent(s), legal
guardian(s) or any other person who has the care of the child.”
Article 19(2)
lays down that: “Such protective measures should, as appropriate, include
effective procedures for the establishment of social programmes to provide
necessary support for the child and for those who have the care of the child,
as well as for other forms of prevention and for identification, reporting,
referral, investigation, treatment and follow-up of instances of child
maltreatment described heretofore, and, as appropriate, for judicial
involvement.”
The teacher
and the school also shall be liable to pay compensation to the injured child,
according to law. The Commission directed the KVS, its headquarters and
regional directors to voluntarily disclose whether they have framed policy as
advised by the NCPCR to eliminate the corporal punishment in their schools,
details of incidents of corporal punishments and action taken against liable
teachers, compensation to be paid and amount of compensation paid to the
victims etc, every year, beginning with 2015-16, within three months.
The
Commission recommended that each school shall publish such a report every year,
which shall be the model for other school. It will go a long way in making
school a place of pleasant learning free from assaults and humiliations. The
KVS also should have a policy of paying some amount as compensation to the
victim children and that amount should be deducted from the salary of liable
teacher.
The public
authority is directed to collect details of teachers punished for corporal
assaults on children including the case complained. The Central Information
Commission directed the KVS headquarters to circulate copy of this order to all
schools and regional offices. (Based on the order of CIC in
CIC/CC/A/2014/002226-SA, Brahmanand Misra v KVS, decided on 22.7.2016)