After 16-Year-Old’s Suicide Amid Alleged Bullying Over Gender Expression, P&H HC Directs Haryana To Enforce Supreme Court’s School-Safety Guidelines

The petitioner, the mother of a 16-year-old child who died by suicide on 24 February 2022, alleged that her son had experienced bullying, harassment and sexual assault at school, and that the school failed to act despite being informed of his difficulties.

An FIR was registered under Section 306 IPC; the investigation later resulted in a final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. being filed on 6 December 2022.

The petitioner initially sought transfer of the investigation to the CBI and judicial monitoring, but withdrew the transfer prayer.

She continued to seek monitoring and directions for guidelines to prevent harassment of LGBTQIA+ students and ensure their implementation in educational institutions.

The Court withheld the identities of the deceased child and other students who had been minors, in view of Section 23 of the POCSO Act.

Section 482 Cr.P.C. preserves the High Court’s inherent power to secure the ends of justice, but does not confer a general power to frame nationwide educational policy.

Under the principles in Vineet Narain v. Union of India, (1998) 1 SCC 226, and Narmada Bai v. State of Gujarat, (2011) 5 SCC 79, judicial monitoring of an investigation ordinarily ends when the charge-sheet is filed; thereafter, matters relating to the trial, including further investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C., fall to the competent trial court.

An exceptional order for further or fresh investigation may nevertheless be made to secure justice, and a Magistrate’s power to direct further investigation may continue until charges are framed: State of Punjab v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2011) 9 SCC 182, and Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya v. State of Gujarat, (2019) 17 SCC 1.

The Supreme Court’s binding guidelines in Sukdeb Saha v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2025 INSC 893, issued under Articles 32 and 141, require, among other things, qualified counsellors and appropriate student-to-counsellor ratios, staff training in non-discriminatory engagement with vulnerable students including LGBTQ+ students, confidential mechanisms for addressing bullying and harassment, and annual reporting.

Existing school-safety guidelines and CBSE Circular No. Acad-17/2015 also address school safety and bullying.

Because the final report had been filed, the ordinary process of judicial monitoring had ended; the petitioner could instead raise alleged investigative deficiencies, including the handling of electronic evidence, before the competent court, which retained the relevant powers under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C.

The Court declined to frame a separate set of guidelines, since the Supreme Court’s Sukdeb Saha guidelines already addressed the petitioner’s concerns and additional directions of general application could create a parallel framework.

However, the record raised concerns about the implementation of existing protections in schools.

The Court therefore held that directing the responsible authorities to implement binding guidelines was distinct from making new policy and was appropriate to protect children’s Article 21 rights.

The monitoring prayer was dismissed as infructuous, without prejudice to the petitioner raising investigative deficiencies before the competent court.

The Court declined to frame new guidelines but directed Haryana’s Department of School Education to ensure compliance by schools in the State with the Sukdeb Saha guidelines and the 2021 School Safety and Security Guidelines within three months.

CBSE was directed to instruct its affiliated schools within the Court’s territorial jurisdiction to comply with the relevant guidelines, call for and scrutinise annual reports, and take appropriate action within three months.

The Union of India was directed to consider the petitioner’s suggestions in consultation with NCERT and issue a speaking order within six months.

The Court further directed that the identities of the deceased child and the students who were minors at the relevant time not be disclosed in public records, and clarified that its observations did not express any view on the merits of the criminal case.