Background:

In the present case, Rajesh Kumar, a computer teacher at a government-aided school in Tirur, Kerala, was accused by several female students of inappropriate conduct, including holding their hands while teaching, asking intrusive questions about sanitary products, and sending obscene WhatsApp images- some mistakenly sent to parents. A school inquiry found objectionable material in his possession, leading to a show-cause notice and an apology, though the behavior reportedly continued. Following a writ petition by the Parent-Teacher Association, five FIRs were registered under Sections 7 and 8 of the POCSO Act, though some victim statements- especially from minors were initially not recorded. The Kerala High Court quashed these FIRs, holding there was no sexual intent, prompting appeal to the Supreme Court.

Issues

• Does Rajesh Kumar’s conduct- holding students’ hands in the computer lab, asking intrusive questions about sanitary items, and sending obscene images demonstrate the “sexual intent” required under Section 7 of the POCSO Act?

• Can non‑penetrative physical contact by a teacher, in the context of his authority and accompanied by suggestive behavior, be treated as “sexual assault” under POCSO, even without overt expressions of intent?

• Did the Kerala High Court improperly quash the FIRs by conducting a premature “mini‑trial” on factual issues like sexual intent and consent instead of allowing the trial court to evaluate evidence on these points?

Observations:

The Supreme Court observed that:

• • The Court emphasized that in a teacher–student context, non‑penetrative physical contact like holding a child’s hand while using a mouse can fall under “any other act with sexual intent” as defined in Section 7 of POCSO.
• • The combination of hand-holding, invasive questions (e.g., about sanitary napkins), and sending obscene WhatsApp images provides sufficient basis to infer sexual intent, given the positional power imbalance.
• • The SC criticized the Kerala High Court for pre-judging intent and conducting a “mini‑trial” at the FIR-quashing stage. It asserted such factual determinations are for the trial court to evaluate, not the High Court.
• • The Court directed protective steps:
• (a) designate victims as protected witnesses,
• (b) record their statements promptly (at least twice monthly),
• (c) keep identities confidential, and
• (d) suspend the accused teacher during the pendency of trial.

Decision:

The Supreme Court laid down the decision as mentioned below:

• o The Supreme Court set aside the Kerala High Court’s order and reinstated the FIRs under Sections 7 & 8 of the POCSO Act, directing the criminal trial to proceed.
• o The Court affirmed that non-penetrative acts- such as holding a student’s hand in a computer lab qualified as “any other act with sexual intent” under Section 7 (sexual assault). This was especially valid in a teacher-student relationship when accompanied by other suggestive behaviours.
• o The bench criticized the Kerala High Court for performing a “mini-trial” by pre-judging sexual intent. It stressed that such factual determinations belong to the trial court, not the quashing stage.
• o To protect the minors, the Supreme Court mandated the following:
• - Treating victims as protected witnesses.
• - Recording their statements promptly and in-camera.
• - Keeping their identities confidential.
• - Suspending the accused teacher during trial proceedings.

Why this case matters?

o Expands the Legal Definition of Sexual Assault: The Court clarified that even non-penetrative physical contact- like a teacher holding a student’s hand- can constitute “sexual assault” under Section 7 of POCSO if accompanied by suggestive behavior.

o Contextualizes Power Imbalance & Intent: A teacher’s authoritative role, combined with invasive questions regarding sanitary napkins and sending obscene images, warranted a reasonable inference of sexual intent, reinforcing child protection in hierarchical settings.

o Affirms Trial-Court Role & Victim Safeguards: The Court reprimanded the Kerala High Court for conducting a "mini-trial" at the FIR-quashing stage.

Laws related therewith:

Under BNS:

• o Section 74 – Assault to outrage modesty (relevant for touching or gestures)
• o Section 79 – Insulting modesty via words or gestures. These can complement POCSO charges when harassment is involved.

Under Information Technology Act, 2000:

• o Section 67: Criminalises electronic distribution of obscene content e.g., vulgar WhatsApp images shared with minors.

Under Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection) Act, 2015:

• o Section 75: Holds accountable adults in charge of children (like teachers) for neglect or cruelty, underlining institutional responsibilities.

Under Dowry POCSO Act, 2012:

• o Sections 7: Section 7 directly captures non-consensual, non-penetrative actions with sexual intent- like the hand-holding in the computer lab- particularly when paired with suggestive communications.
• o Section 8: Punishment- Prescribes a minimum of 3 years’ imprisonment (up to 5 years plus a fine) for sexual assault under Section 7.
• o Sections 9 & 10: Apply due to the teacher–student dynamic, which elevates the misconduct to aggravated sexual assault.
• o Section 21: Obliges any person aware of such offence to report it, mandating school officials and institutions to act or face legal consequences.

Judicial Precedents:

• Rakesh Kumar Bansal v. State of HP (2024): This high court reaffirmed that touch with sexual intent, even on the back, cheek, or neck, combined with lewd comments, constitutes an offence under Section 7. It emphasized that context (teacher-student) and intent are crucial.

• Libnus v. State of Maharashtra & Satish Ragde v. State of Maharashtra (2021): Supreme court overruled the judgements of both the cases and held by solidifying that contact- even through garments can amount to sexual assault.

• Attorney General for India v. Satish (2021): The Supreme Court overturned the Bombay High Court’s narrow view that "skin-to-skin" contact is required for sexual assault under POCSO. It held that any physical contact with sexual intent, even if it is through clothing, falls within Section 7, and emphasized that intent, not the nature of contact, is the key factor.