Safety of Children In School Buses Is Not Charity Or Convenience: Karnataka HC On School’s Extended Duty Of Care; Refuses To Quash FIR

Karnataka: The Karnataka High Court has held that a school’s duty of care towards students does not end at the school gate and continues until children are safely dropped home in the school bus, as per the Bar and Bench Report.

Observing that a school bus is an “extension of the school itself,” Justice M. Nagaprasanna refused to quash criminal proceedings against the management of a Mandya-based school in connection with an incident in which a Class IV student suffered a permanent eye injury while travelling in a school bus.

The Court was hearing a petition filed by Divyajyothi School Management challenging an FIR registered against it.

“Safety in school buses is a statutory obligation”

The Court underscored that ensuring student safety in school transport is not a matter of convenience but a legal mandate.

“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 observed as per the Bar and Bench Report.

It further noted that schools are bound by the Karnataka Educational Institutions (Classification, Regulation and Prescription of Curricula, etc.) (Amendment) Rules, 2018, which require adequate supervision of students during transit.

Incident led to permanent disability

The case arises from an incident on August 1, 2025, when a Class IV student was travelling home in a school bus. According to the complaint, some students allegedly sprayed coloured confetti or similar material inside the bus, which entered the child’s eye and caused severe injury.

The student reportedly suffered irreversible loss of vision in one eye and was later assessed with 40% permanent disability, as per the Bar and Bench Report.

Following the incident, the child’s parent lodged a criminal complaint against the school management.

Allegations of negligence against school management

The FIR alleged that the school failed to ensure proper supervision inside the bus, did not deploy an attendant, and failed to maintain a functional CCTV system.

The school, however, argued that it had taken all necessary precautions and could not be held criminally liable for the independent act of another student.

Court: Investigation must proceed

Rejecting the plea to quash the FIR, the High Court held that several factual issues required investigation, including whether an attendant was present, whether CCTV cameras were functional, and whether safety protocols were followed.

The Court as per the Bar and Bench Report also rejected the argument that the school could escape liability due to the act of another student, noting that negligence by the institution, if any, would still be relevant.

At the stage of quashing proceedings, the Court said the only consideration is whether the complaint discloses a cognisable offence warranting investigation.

Offence under BNS made out prima facie

The Court found that the allegations prima facie attract Section 125(a) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which deals with rash or negligent acts endangering human life or personal safety resulting in hurt.

Accordingly, it dismissed the petition filed by the school management and allowed the investigation to continue.

Published on: Wednesday, July 01, 2026, 12:44 PM IST