The Calcutta High Court issued guidelines for teachers to refrain from political involvement and to conduct themselves in a proper manner. These guidelines emphasize maintaining professionalism and avoiding engagement in political activities, ensuring that educators prioritize their roles in education and uphold ethical standards.
KOLKATA: Today (6th May): The Calcutta High Court issued comprehensive guidelines for teachers, maintaining professionalism and avoiding political involvement. The court’s directive came in response to a defamation case filed by a teacher against the principal of Hooghly Women’s College.
READ ALSO: Calcutta High Court exempted lawyers from wearing gowns
Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul), acting as the single judge, emphasized that teachers are required to uphold professional standards of conduct, which include the following:
Guidelines for Teachers’ Professional Conduct:
The High Court’s guidelines outline the following professional standards of conduct for teachers:
- Respect for students: Teachers should treat students with dignity and fairness, fostering an inclusive and supportive learning environment.
- Competence: Teachers must demonstrate expertise in their subject matter and teaching methods to effectively impart knowledge to students.
- Integrity: Teachers are expected to be honest and transparent in all their academic and administrative dealings.
- Professionalism: Maintaining appropriate boundaries and behavior in interactions with students, colleagues, and staff is crucial.
- Fairness and impartiality: Teachers should evaluate students’ work objectively and provide constructive feedback to facilitate their growth.
- Continuous improvement: Engaging in professional development activities helps teachers enhance their teaching skills and stay up-to-date in their field.
- Collegiality: Collaboration with colleagues and contributing positively to the academic community promotes a healthy educational environment.
- Compliance with institutional policies: Teachers should adhere to college policies and procedures related to teaching, research, and student support.
The petitioner was represented by advocates Apalak Basu, Abhradip Jha, and Jagriti Bhattacharya. Advocates Goutam Brahma, Tapash Das, Pampa Ghosh, and Arijit Dey appeared on behalf of the respondent.
READ ALSO: Calcutta High Court: No Bail for ‘Child Marriage’ Offenders
The court expressed its concern regarding the influence of politics in educational institutions and its adverse impact on the primary goal of providing quality education. The judge noted that creating a hostile atmosphere in such institutions hampers students’ welfare, as their future is directly affected by the actions of educational establishments.
“It is regrettable that, influenced by politics, the fundamental aim of providing education is disregarded entirely. Such a hostile environment within an educational institution contradicts the welfare, which is of utmost importance, of the students whose future is entrusted to these colleges,” remarked the judge in an order dated May 2.”
Background
The case in question revolved around a defamation complaint filed by a teacher against the principal of Hooghly Women’s College. The teacher alleged that the principal had spread false rumors about fictitious conspiracies involving the teacher. Furthermore, the principal had publicly criticized the college’s chaotic situation, accusing the teacher and a student union secretary of abetting illegal activities.
“After reviewing the case’s facts, the Court determined that the alleged imputations made by the petitioner would fall within the scope of the ‘Exceptions’ outlined in Section 499 (Defamation) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
“The facts presented in the written complaint align with the 9th exception delineated in Section 499; thus, the elements necessary to establish the alleged offense under Section 500 are evidently lacking in this instance,” the court stated.
Upon scrutinizing the contents of the written complaint, the Court remarked that there was no evidence to suggest that any imputations were made against the complainant with the intent to cause harm or with the knowledge or belief that it would damage the complainant’s reputation.
“The statements made by the petitioner in the interview unequivocally fall within the ninth exception under Section 499 IPC, and as such, the elements required to establish the alleged offenses are clearly absent against the petitioner,” the Court declared while dismissing the case.”
Case Title: Dr. Sima Banerjee vs Dr. Barnali Chattopadhyay
