The Supreme Court in Avinash Nagra v.

Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti (1997) 2 SCC 534 was also

concerned with a case of termination of services of a teacher. It was held that right to education
is a fundamental right; that the success of the educational process depends considerably on the
teacher, for it is the teacher who has to implant aims and to build the character of the students
and who is a primary functionary to transmit the intellectual and ethical value to the young; that
a teacher cannot be without character - if he lacks it, he will be like salt without its savour;
children imbibe more from the teacher's own life than they do from books; if teachers impart all
the knowledge in the world to their students but do not inculcate truth and purity amongst them,
they will have betrayed them; that a teacher must be an example of Sadachar or good conduct; a
teacher must be self-disciplined and dedicated with integrity; it is the duty of the teacher to take
such care of the pupils as a careful parent would take of its children and the ordinary principle of
vicarious liability would apply where negligence is that of a teacher. It was further emphasized
that education to the girl children is nation's asset and foundation for fertile human resources and
disciplined family management, apart from their equal participation in socio-economic and
political democracy. It was further observed that it is only of late, some middle class people are
sending the girl children to co-educational institutions under the care of proper management and
to look after the welfare and safety of the girls and therefore, greater responsibility is thrust on
the management of the schools and colleges to protect the young children, in particular, the
growing up girls, to bring them up in disciplined and dedicated pursuit of excellence; the teacher
who has been kept in charge, bears more added higher responsibility and should be more
exemplary - his/her character and conduct should be more like Rishi and as loco parentis. The
Supreme Court held that the conduct of the teacher has to be judged in the said light and if the
conduct is of betraying the trust and forfeiting the faith, the teacher cannot even demand a full-
fledged enquiry. It was further observed that inquiry is not a panacea but a nail in the coffin.
Accordingly the rules providing special procedure for inquiry were upheld. The Supreme Court
held that it is very hazardous to expose the young girls to tardy process of cross- examination.

We may also notice that Justice Sathasivam speaking for the Division Bench of the Madras High
Court in C. Parthiban and Selvi D. Akila v. Dr. K. Meena (2007) 3 MLJ 492 in the absence of the
rules prescribing any special procedure in this regard upheld the decision of the Vice-Chancellor
to change the mode of inquiry in order to protect the modesty of girl students to prevent their
unnecessary exposure at an enquiry. It was observed that it is very hazardous to expose the
young girl to tardy process of cross examination.

INTRODUCTION
Indian Judiciary did a gesticulating job on August 24, 2017, nine judge’s bench unanimously in
the Justice K.S. Puttaswamy and Anr. vs Union of India & Ors1, a case that will go down in
Indian Legal History, establishing privacy as a fundamental right.

FACT

The facts of the case are that a boy got admitted in the school in year 2016 – 17 and currently
pursuing 12th from the St. Thomas Central School, Thiruvananthapuram. On a function at school
21 July 2017, boy aged sixteen year old has given a hug (congratulatory as said by second
respondent) to her friend (girl) on recital of a song. This act of respondent was reported to
petitioner 1 (Principal). Both the students apologized. Later few instagram photos of both the
students in compromising position surfaced in the school which were seen by the other students
as well as the public, which as per the school authorities affected the morale of the student and
reputation of the school2. Parents of both the students approached to the principal and made a
written request for wards to take Onam examinations. On 11/09/2017, both the students were
suspended consequent to action of disciplinary committee. Against this order of disciplinary
committee, boy’s parent approached Kerala Child Rights Commission and the principal was
summoned, who put forth the disciplinary committee report and instagram photographs.
Commission under Sec.94 (e) and Sec.151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 advised
Principal to complete the proceedings and served an order dated 30/10/2017 to admit the Boy in
the school.

1Writ Petition(s) (Civil) No(s). 494/2012.

2Order under WP(C).No. 32325 of 2017 (M)