The Karnataka High Court has refused to quash criminal proceedings against the management of Divyajyothi School in Mandya, holding that allegations of negligence over a school bus incident causing permanent visual impairment to a Class 4 student require a full investigation. The Court observed that a school bus is an extension of the school, and institutions cannot avoid responsibility for children's safety during transport.
Background of the Case
The case arose after a Class 4 student allegedly suffered a serious eye injury while travelling home in the school's Bus No. 5 on August 1, 2025. According to the complaint, a few students sprayed coloured confetti inside the bus, and the substance entered the child's eye, eventually leading to permanent loss of vision in one eye. A disability certificate later assessed the child with 40% permanent disability to the whole body.
The child's mother alleged that the school management failed to ensure proper supervision inside the bus, did not provide an attendant, and allowed a non-functional CCTV system, amounting to negligence. Based on these allegations, an FIR was registered under Section 125(a) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).
School's Stand
The school management argued that it had taken necessary safety measures, including installing CCTV cameras and appointing an attendant. It contended that the incident resulted from the actions of another child and that the management should not face criminal proceedings for an accident occurring inside the school bus.
The State and the complainant opposed the plea, submitting that whether the CCTV was functional, whether an attendant was present, and whether the school complied with mandatory transport safety rules were all issues requiring investigation.
Court's Observations
Justice M. Nagaprasanna observed,
"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 said,
"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."
It held that questions regarding the presence of an attendant, functioning of CCTV cameras, supervision by the school, and compliance with transport safety rules can only be answered through investigation.
The Court also noted that an FIR is only meant to set the criminal law in motion and is not expected to contain every detail or establish guilt at the initial stage.
Decision
Finding no grounds to interfere, the High Court dismissed the petition seeking quashing of the FIR and directed that the investigation should continue.
It clarified that the school's criminal liability, if any, can only be determined after a proper investigation and not at the threshold.
Case Details
Case Title: Divyajyothi School Management v. State of Karnataka & Another
Case Number: Criminal Petition No. 13718 of 2025
Judge: Justice M. Nagaprasanna
Decision Date: June 23, 2026
-300x169.webp)
-300x169.webp)
