Latest Articles
Back
Kerala teen surveillance case: Invasion of Privacy and Imposition of Public Morality
On December 12, the Kerala High Court upheld the suspension of two school students, a boy and a girl accused of public display of affection. The two students were suspended upon recommendation of disciplinary committee of the school on ground of indecent behaviour in a school function. The facts of the case happen to be that a girl student of St. Thomas Central School, Kerala was performing a song in a school function and after she performed the song, her friend, a boy student came and hugged her before the teachers and principal of the school. Following the incident as per the recommendation of the disciplinary committee the parents of both the students were also summoned and the students were finally suspended on ground of indecent behavior. It was alleged by the petitioners, in this case that following the suspension several photographs were also uploaded in social media handle instagram of the students depicting the girl student in compromising position and the petitioners alleged that the photographs have affected the morale of students and reputation of school. The respondents have argued that such photos have actually been accessed by breaching privacy , given the fact that the photos were protected by instagram privacy settings and screen shots were taken of the photos for their production before the court, further it was also argued by the respondents that the pictures were taken in a private birthday party of the students, captured in a conducive environment as argued by the respondents. The court has ruled that given the photos were not protected by the privacy settings, it would have definitely hampered the reputation of the school. The petitioners have also challenged the power of the Kerela State Commission for Protection of Child Rights which had passed an interim order allowing one of the students to attend the classes under Section 14 of Commission for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005. The petitioners relied on various provisions of International Conventions ensuring freedom of speech and expression of the children like Article 13 on United Nations Convention on Rights of Child. The court has rejected these contentions and has said that power exercised by the state child rights commission, by passing an interim order under Section 14 of Protection of Child Rights Act allowing one of the students to attend classes is arbitrary and illegal. The court has said that the power given under Section 14 of the Protection of Child Rights Act,2005 is only with respect to power under CPC while conducting enquiry during trial proceedings and is not applicable in this case. Furthermore, the court has held that the school authority’s action to suspend the students was in larger interest of securing the reputation of the school and was justified. The court has refused to acknowledge any illegality with regard to suspension of the students and has advised the school authorities to employ a less harsh approach to the issue and has suggested the school to impose fine on the students to further deter such behavior. The judgement has categorically overlooked the aspect of privacy which has been acknowledged as a fundamental right following the Puttuswamy judgement. What has come out to be the most interesting aspect in the judgement is the importance given to the school authorities as loco parentis with regard to action done by students outside the school premises and in social networking sites.
Another interesting issue that comes out in this case is that can surveillance be justified on a 16 year old on ground of public morality and reputation especially in this case where the school authorities have contended that harm was caused to their reputation because of photos on instagram which was protected by the privacy settings. It is important here to see whether a direct nexus was there with regard to the harm caused to the reputation and the publication of photos. One of the students in this case is in XII standard and is most likely to appear for his board examinations , the respondents have also argued that the student is preparing for common law entrance examination and has suffered great mental distress. The court has to keep in mind these aspects before deciding on these cases which are sensitive and are likely to affect students who have an impressionable mind and who are in cross–roads of their careers.
