School’s Duty of Care Extends Beyond Campus, Says Karnataka High Court
In a significant ruling, the Karnataka High Court has emphasized that a school’s responsibility for student safety extends beyond the school premises and continues during transit on the school bus. The court’s decision came in the case Divyajyothi School Management Vs State of Karnataka, presided over by Justice M Nagaprasanna.
Justice Nagaprasanna asserted that a school bus should be considered an extension of school property, necessitating the presence of attendants or teachers to supervise students until they return home. This interpretation aligns with the Karnataka Educational Institutions (Classification, Regulation and Prescription of Curricula, etc.,) (Amendment) Rules, 2018. The court underscored that schools are bound by statute to ensure student safety until they are safely home, describing this responsibility as a statutory mandate rather than a discretionary act.
The court’s observations arose during its refusal to quash an FIR against the management of a school in Mandya, following an incident where a Class IV student reportedly lost vision in one eye due to an accident on a school bus. The court rejected the school’s management petition to dismiss the criminal case, emphasizing that the safety of students on school buses is a statutory duty, not merely a convenience.
Incident Details and Legal Proceedings
The incident in question occurred on August 1, 2025, involving a Class IV student who was injured while traveling home on a school bus. The complaint alleges that other students sprayed colored confetti or sparklers inside the bus, resulting in particles entering the student’s eye, causing irreversible vision loss and a 40% permanent disability. The child’s parents subsequently lodged a criminal complaint.
The FIR against the school management cites a lack of adequate supervision, absence of an attendant, and failure to maintain a functional CCTV camera. In response, the school management filed a petition to quash the FIR, arguing they had taken necessary precautions and should not be held liable for unforeseen acts by other students.
More Read
Court’s Analysis and Ruling
The High Court, however, determined that several critical factual issues warranted a police investigation. These include whether an attendant was present on the bus, the operational status of the CCTV camera, the allowance of dangerous materials on board, and adherence to prescribed safety protocols. The court also dismissed the argument that the school’s responsibility was negated by the independent actions of another child, stating that the management could be held accountable if its negligence contributed to the incident.
The court held that the allegations, if proven, could constitute an offense under Section 125(a) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which addresses negligent acts endangering life or safety. Consequently, the court denied the school’s request to dismiss the case, allowing the investigation to proceed.
Representing the school was Advocate Nitin AM, while High Court Government Pleader Waheeda MM appeared for the State, and Advocate DA Shivakumar represented the complainant.
