The Madras High Court on Monday stayed the investigation being conducted by the Coimbatore police against the management of a private school for having taken 32 students, in uniform, to Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s roadshow in the city on March 18.
Justice G. Jayachandran granted the interim stay after Advocate-General P.S. Raman sought time to file a detailed counter-affidavit to a petition filed by school headmistress S. Pukal Vadivu for quashing the First Information Report (FIR) registered on March 19.
The FIR was booked following a complaint filed by District Child Protection Officer Pavithra Devi, who had conducted an inquiry on coming to know about the children’s presence in the roadshow through media reports and a communication from an Assistant Returning Officer.
The Advocate-General said an important question — whether the act committed by the school management would attract the offence under Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015? — had to be decided and hence the prosecution might be granted time to file a counter-affidavit.
He said, the penal provision, which prescribes imprisonment for a maximum of three years or a fine of ₹1 lakh or both could be invoked against any person who exposes or wilfuly neglects a child in a manner that is likely to cause the child unnecessary mental or physical suffering.
Stressing on the use of the word ‘likely’ in the provision, Mr. Raman said that not just real or imminent threat but also potential threat could be a reason to invoke the provision, especially when the schoolchildren had been taken to the roadshow without the consent of their parents.
The Advocate-General also said the Investigating Officer attached to the Sai Baba Colony police station was in possession of aerial photographs showing the presence of the headmistress and two teachers, along with the .children, when the Prime Minister’s convoy passed through them.
Justice Jayachandran said that not only the word ‘likely’ but also the word ‘unnecessary’, found before the words ‘physical and mental or physical suffering’, in Section 75 of the Act would have to be considered while deciding whether it could be invoked in the present case.
The use of the word ‘unnecessary’ makes a big difference, he said, directing the High Court Registry to list the FIR quash petition for final hearing on April 24 since the prosecution sought time to file a counter- affidavit. He also stayed the investigation until further orders.
