LAW AGAINST CORPORAL PUNISHMENT

A contribution from GOOGLE on probable consequences for the perpetrators of corporal punishment: (for kind information pls. )
In India corporal punishment extends till brutality and the Supreme Court introduced a law in the year 2000 to ban corporal punishment. The Indian Penal Code is supposed to protect children from being subjected to punishment in schools in India; however there are loopholes in the law that aids the use of such brutal punishments in school. According to IPC section 83, any child who has not done homework or has not dressed in an appropriate fashion should not incite any form of corporal punishment in schools in India. The Indian Penal Code, Section 88 provides the Headmaster or a guardian the freedom to inflict pain through corporal punishment in schools in India as long as the reason is justifiable. The Section 23 of the Juvenile Justice Act 2000 prohibits cruelty to children. The law does not excuse teachers and parents if they are liable for assaulting or exposing a juvenile to unnecessary f punishment. There are many contradictions that can be found in the law pertaining to corporal punishment . If Headmasters are allowed to use brutal punishment on children up to a certain point, the Headmaster himself becomes the judge of the extent to which he can carry on the penalty. Since he himself is the judge, the children are at his mercy and no other person is present to supervise the delivery of punishment and this dilutes the provisions in the law for the safety of children. At the same time using excessive force and punishing a child for a cause that is not justifiable is prohibited under the section 89 of the IPC. The law says that incidents outside the scope of good faith are prohibited.
Relevant Constitutional Provisions
(1) Article 21 of the Constitution of India which protects the right to life and dignity includes the right to education for children up to 14 years of age2. Corporal punishment amounts to abuse and militates against the freedom and dignity of a child. It also interferes with a child’s right to education because fear of corporal punishment makes children more likely to avoid school or to drop out altogether. Hence, corporal punishment is violative of the right to life with dignity.
(2) Article 21A of the Constitution provides that “the State shall provide free and compulsory education to all children of the age of six to fourteen years in such manner as the State may, by law, determine.” This fundamental right has been actualised with the enactment of Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009.
(3) Article 39(e) directs the State to work progressively to ensure that “… the tender age of children are not abused”.
(4) Article 39(f) directs the State to work progressively to ensure that “children are given opportunities and facilities to develop in a healthy manner and in conditions of freedom and dignity and that childhood and youth are protected against exploitation and against moral and material abandonment.”
Indian Penal Code (IPC)
Several provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) relating to varying degrees of physical harm and intimidation can be used to prosecute perpetrators of corporal punishment against children in an institutional setting. These include, inter alia:
Section 305: Abetment of suicide committed by a child;
Section 323: Voluntarily causing hurt;
Section 325: Voluntarily causing grievous hurt;
Section 326: Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means;
Section 352: Assault or use of criminal force otherwise than a grave provocation;
Section 354: Outraging the modesty of a woman;
Section 506: Criminal intimidation;
Section 509: Word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman;
Till recently, the provisions of Sections 88 and 89 of the IPC were invoked to explain the power teachers exercised when inflicting corporal punishment. These two provisions in the chapter on ‘General Exceptions’ cover harms that may be caused without penal consequence. Section 88 exempts an act from being treated as an offence when the harm was caused “to any person for whose benefit it is done in good faith”. Section 89 exempts acts “done in good faith for the benefit of a person under 12 years of age … by or by consent, either express or implied, of the guardian or other person having lawful charge of that person.” However, contrary to Sections 88 and 89 of the IPC, the Gujarat High Court in its judgement Hasmukhbhai Gokaldas Shah v. State of Gujarat, 17 November 2008, has clearly stated that “corporal punishment to child in present days … is not recognised by law”.
In theory, corporal punishment is covered by all the provisions under Indian law that punish perpetrators of physical harm. While these provisions make no distinction between adults and children, in practice, corporal punishment in schools and other institutions tends not to be prosecuted because it is widely accepted socially and regarded as legitimate. So the provisions highlighted in this section, the criminal provisions in particular, have the potential to be used in situations of corporal punishment, but rarely are.
RTE Act, 2009
The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education (RTE) Act, 2009, which has come into force with effect from 1 April 2010, prohibits ‘physical punishment’ and ‘mental harassment’ under Section 17(1) and makes it a punishable offence under Section 17(2). These provisions read
as follows:
17. Prohibition of physical punishment and mental harassment to child –
(1) No child shall be subjected
to physical punishment or mental harassment.
(2) Whoever contravenes the provisions of sub-section (1) shall be liable to disciplinary action under the service rules applicable to such person.
Sections 8 and 9 of the RTE Act place a duty on the appropriate Government and the local authority to “ensure that the child belonging to weaker section and the child belonging to disadvantaged group are not discriminated against and prevented from pursuing and completing elementary
education on any grounds”.
The RTE Act does not preclude the application of other legislation that relates to the violations of the rights of the child, for example, booking the offenses under the IPC and the SC and ST Prevention of Atrocities Act of 1989.
The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000
Section 23 of the Act, 2000 states as follows: “Whoever, having the actual charge of, or control over, a juvenile or the child, assaults, abandons, exposes or wilfully neglects the juvenile or causes or procures him to be assaulted, abandoned, exposed or neglected in a manner likely to cause such juvenile or the child unnecessary mental or physical suffering shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or fine, or with both.”
Section 23 covers the actions of anyone who has “actual charge or control over” a child. While Section 23 is likely to be applied most often to personnel in childcare institutions regulated by the JJ Act, it arguably applies to cruelty by anyone in a position of authority over a child, which would
include parents, guardians, teachers and employers.
Scheduled Castes and Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
Some provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 can be used to prosecute an adult in the general category who inflicts corporal punishment upon a scheduled caste or scheduled tribe child.
Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955
Various provisions of the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 can be used to prosecute a person/ manager/trustee as well as warrant resumption or suspension of grants made by the Government to the educational institution or hostel on the ground of untouchability.

Thanks donyi_polo for your valuable information. I fell privilege for being part of such wonderful forum and learned community members like you. Please carry on such wonderful work and provide useful knowledge to us.