Student Death Case: Delhi High Court Discharges School Principal Due To Negligence

The Delhi High Court recently absolved Rekha Kakkar, a government school principal, of charges stemming from the alleged negligence that led to the death of a student in a Kapashera school in 2016.

The court’s decision was predicated on a procedural irregularity, specifically the failure to secure the requisite sanction for prosecution before the court had taken cognizance of the charge sheet.

In her ruling on January 17, Justice Neena Bansal Krishna reaffirmed the well-established legal doctrine that prosecutorial sanction is a prerequisite to cognizance. She stated, “It is settled law that the sanction had to be obtained prior to taking cognizance. Subsequent sanctions would not cure the initial defect in cognizance. Consequently, the application for dropping of proceedings against the petitioner is allowed, and she is hereby discharged with the liberty to the prosecution to take appropriate action.”

The incident that gave rise to this case involved the tragic drowning of a four-year-old child in a septic tank on school premises. An FIR was registered under Section 304A (causing death by negligence) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) at Kapashera police station. Among the accused were the principal, a junior engineer (JE), a contractor, and a school maid. The charge sheet, filed on July 5, 2016, led the magistrate to order the framing of charges under Section 304A against all four individuals.

Rekha Kakkar challenged the proceedings on the grounds that the magistrate’s cognizance of the case was procedurally flawed due to the absence of prior prosecutorial sanction against herself and the JE. Advocate Dhruv Gupta, representing Kakkar, argued that a subsequent sanction could not rectify the procedural deficiency. He further maintained that any fresh charge sheet filed against his client must be accompanied by an application for condonation of delay.

The Metropolitan Magistrate of Dwarka, in a 2018 ruling, dismissed Kakkar’s objections, prompting her to seek recourse from the High Court. Although the prosecution subsequently obtained the requisite sanction and submitted it to the court, the High Court agreed with the petitioner’s counsel that the post-cognizance sanction could not retroactively address the procedural lapse.

The Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) conceded during proceedings that the sanction was indeed acquired post-cognizance. The High Court further clarified that any application for condonation of delay, if filed, would be adjudicated in accordance with legal standards. However, the trial against the remaining accused will continue as prescribed by law.

This judgment underscores the paramount importance of procedural rigor in legal processes involving public servants. It serves as a reminder that adherence to statutory requirements is essential to ensure both equitable and procedurally sound administration of justice.

Read More: Supreme Court, Delhi High Court, States High Court, International