In a significant ruling that underscores the paramount importance of child safety in educational institutions, the Bombay High Court recently granted bail to a woman school helper accused of hurting a junior kindergarten student. The court used the occasion to issue crucial guidelines for schools, mandating specific training for employees who are in direct contact with young children.
The Court's Directive on Child Care and Sensitivity
Justice Neela Gokhale, while passing the order on December 19, emphasized the profound responsibility schools bear. "The school and its employees, vested with the duty of looking after small children such as the young girl here, must take sufficient care and ensure that such physical touch is avoided at all costs," the judge stated. The court further elaborated that in unavoidable circumstances where touching a child's private part is necessary, it must be done with extreme sensitivity and care.
This observation came during the bail hearing of the helper, who was arrested on September 16. She was booked under charges of rape and the stringent Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act for aggravated sexual assault, after a complaint from a young student.
Chronology of the Incident and Investigation
The case originated when a junior KG student returned from her Mumbai school and complained to her mother of a burning sensation while urinating. After coaxing, the child revealed that "a nanny" had hurt her when she was taken to the toilet. The mother subsequently approached the authorities.
A medical report from a hospital mentioned "alleged sexual assault based on history and examination due to fingering." Based on this, the helper was arrested, and her bail application was initially rejected by the Dindoshi sessions court.
However, during the High Court proceedings, the helper's advocate, C K Talekar, presented a different narrative. He argued that the medical report did not conclusively indicate any offence and claimed his client was not even present on the day of the alleged incident. He stated that two other ayahs had taken the girl to the toilet that day.
Judicial Scrutiny and the Path to Bail
Taking a meticulous approach, Justice Gokhale on December 10 directed the investigating officer, API Suvidha Pallelly, to independently record the minor's version. After reviewing the video-graphed interview, the judge noted a critical detail: "it appears that the redness and scratch was caused by a finger ring worn by the applicant…" The child herself stated that the helper's finger ring had hurt her.
This finding significantly altered the legal perspective. Justice Gokhale remarked, "As far as the nanny is concerned, she does not prima facie appear to have committed any offence, however, she lacked sensitivity while helping young children wash themselves after urinating and she was doing her job quite rashly."
The court also viewed a video presented by the mother's advocate, Saili Dhuru, acknowledging that the child appeared hurt. Yet, the judge concluded that at this stage, the act did not constitute the severe offences alleged.
Considering the totality of circumstances, including that the helper has two children who are alone, Justice Gokhale granted her bail. She was released on a personal bond of Rs 35,000 with stringent conditions. Most notably, the court forbade her from "taking up any employment involving care of minor children in any school or organisation during the pendency of the trial."
This ruling serves as a stark reminder to all educational institutions in India to implement rigorous and sensitive training protocols for all staff interacting with young students, ensuring their safety and well-being is never compromised.
