The Karnataka High Court refused to quash an FIR against Divyajyothi School, holding that a school bus is an extension of the school. The Court remarked, “The safety of children in a school bus is not a matter of charity or convenience; it is a solemn obligation mandated under the Statute as well.”
The Karnataka High Court has refused to quash an FIR against the management of Divyajyothi School in Mandya, observing that a school bus is an extension of the school and that educational institutions cannot escape their responsibility for children’s safety during transportation.
Justice M. Nagaprasanna dismissed the criminal petition filed by the school management, allowing the police investigation to continue into allegations that the school’s negligence resulted in a Class 4 student permanently losing vision in one eye after coloured confetti or sparklers were sprayed inside a school bus.
The case arose from an incident on August 1, 2025, when the child was returning home in School Bus No. 5 along with other students.
During the journey, some children allegedly carried coloured confetti or sparklers and sprayed them inside the bus. The substance entered the victim’s eye.
Describing the seriousness of the incident, the Court observed,
“What may have appeared, at first blush, to be a childish mischief or a fleeting accident, allegedly culminated in a calamity of lifelong consequence: the child lost vision in one eye and suffered disability assessed at 40% to the whole body.”
According to the complaint filed by the child’s mother, the tragedy was not merely the result of another student’s actions but was caused by the school’s failure to ensure proper supervision inside the bus. She alleged that there was no attendant present and that the CCTV camera installed in the bus was not functioning.
The school management approached the High Court seeking quashing of the FIR registered under Section 125(a) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). The management argued that it had taken all necessary precautions, including providing an attendant and installing CCTV cameras, and contended that it could not be held criminally liable for the independent act of another child inside the bus.
However, the State opposed the plea, pointing out that the investigation indicated the CCTV camera was not operational and the bus attendant was absent. The complainant also argued that a school’s responsibility does not end inside the classroom and continues until the child is safely handed over to the parents.
Accepting the need for investigation, the High Court noted that the child suffered irreversible eye damage leading to permanent disability.
The Court observed,
“The allegation, therefore, is not of a transient hurt; it is of a childhood permanently scarred.”
Rejecting the school’s argument that the FIR should be quashed at the initial stage, Justice Nagaprasanna explained that an FIR is not expected to contain every legal detail.
The Court said,
“The complaint may not be an elaborate legal thesis. It need not be. An FIR is not expected to be an encyclopaedia of all facts, all offences, all evidence and all legal consequences. Its purpose is to set the criminal law in motion.”
The Court further clarified that at this stage it was not required to conduct a mini-trial or evaluate the school’s defence. The only question was whether the allegations disclosed the need for investigation, and the Court answered that question in the affirmative.
Highlighting the legal obligations of educational institutions, the Court held that schools providing transport services owe a heightened duty of care to children.
Referring to the Karnataka Educational Institutions (Classification, Regulation and Prescription of Curricula, etc.) (Amendment) Rules, 2018, the Court noted that the law mandates the presence of attendants in school buses and requires schools to supervise students until they safely reach their destinations.
Making a significant observation on student safety, the Court said,
“A school which undertakes to transport children assumes a duty of care that is heightened, not diminished, by the tender age of those entrusted to it.”
The Court further observed,
“The schools cannot violate the said mandate of the statute. A child which travels in a school bus which is an extension of the school itself, cannot be left high and dry till the child from the school reaches the house even if it is the last stop.”
Stressing the importance of student safety, Justice Nagaprasanna remarked,
“The safety of children in a school bus is not a matter of charity or convenience; it is a solemn obligation mandated under the Statute as well.”
The Court added that several issues require detailed investigation, including whether there was an attendant in the bus, whether the CCTV camera was actually functional, whether dangerous materials were allowed inside the bus, whether adequate safety instructions had been issued and enforced, and whether the school management failed in its duty of supervision.
The Court observed,
“Whether there was an attendant in the bus, a security or whether the CCTV camera was installed, even if installed, was merely ornamental or functional, whether prohibited or dangerous material was allowed to be carried by children, whether the school had issued and enforced adequate safety instructions, and whether the management failed in its duty of supervision are all matters which cry for investigation.”
The High Court also held that the allegations disclosed the ingredients of the offence under Section 125(a) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, which deals with rash or negligent acts endangering human life or personal safety resulting in injury.
Finally, rejecting the school’s plea to terminate the criminal proceedings at the threshold, the Court observed,
“The contention that the act was that of another child and, therefore, the management must stand completely absolved at the threshold, cannot be accepted at this stage.”
The Court concluded that the school may ultimately establish that there was no criminal negligence, but such a conclusion can only be reached after a proper investigation. Observing that the incident had left a young child with permanent visual impairment, the High Court dismissed the petition and directed that the investigation must continue.
Case Title: Divyajyothi School Management Vs State of Karnataka