Bullying and Juvenile Violence in Schools: Need for a Special Legal Framework?

By Akanksha of lovely professional university

ABSTRACT

Bullying and juvenile violence in schools have emerged as pervasive concerns undermining the constitutional guarantee of a safe, inclusive, and dignified education in India. Manifesting through physical aggression, psychological intimidation, social exclusion, and cyberbullying, such conduct inflicts profound harm on children’s mental health, academic performance, and future social development. Despite constitutional guarantees under Articles 14, 15(3), 21, and 21A, and statutory protections under the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860, the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, and the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, there exists no specialized legislative framework in India that addresses bullying in its entirety. Judicial interventions, such as in Avinash Mehrotra v. Union of India (2009) and University of Kerala v. Council of Principals of Colleges (2009), underscore the importance of safe educational environments but remain piecemeal in scope.

This paper undertakes a doctrinal and comparative analysis of the Indian legal framework, identifying gaps in statutory protections, judicial remedies, and policy guidelines. It further evaluates international models, including anti-bullying statutes in the United States and the United Kingdom’s Education and Inspections Act, 2006, to explore their applicability in the Indian context. The research argues for the necessity of a specialized anti-bullying law that integrates preventive, rehabilitative, and restorative justice approaches while aligning with India’s obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), 1989. The study concludes that such a framework is vital to balance the twin objectives of protecting child victims and rehabilitating child offenders within a rights-based juvenile justice system.

Keywords: Bullying, Juvenile Violence, Child Rights, Juvenile Justice, Anti-Bullying Law, Constitutional Protections

INTRODUCTION

Contextual Background

Bullying and peer violence in schools have become pressing concerns in modern India, raising critical questions about children’s safety, rights, and dignity within educational spaces. Bullying includes a range of behaviours – physical assault, verbal humiliation, psychological intimidation, social ostracism, sexual harassment, and cyberbullying—that cause significant harm to victims. Unlike isolated conflicts, bullying is characterized by intentionality, repetition, and a power imbalance, making it a form of systemic abuse rather than ordinary peer disputes (Olweus, 2013).

The consequences of bullying are profound. International studies, such as those by UNICEF (2018), highlight that one in three students globally face bullying, often resulting in depression, suicidal tendencies, declining academic performance, and social withdrawal. In India, surveys by the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) indicate that a large percentage of children report facing some form of bullying or violence within schools, yet incidents remain underreported due to stigma, peer pressure, or fear of reprisal.

This reality undermines the constitutional vision of schools as safe environments for holistic child development. Article 21 of the Constitution of India guarantees the right to life with dignity, and the Supreme Court in Francis Coralie Mullin v. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi (1981) affirmed that dignity and protection from exploitation form an integral part of the right to life. Similarly, Article 21A mandates free and compulsory education in a safe and inclusive environment, while Articles 14 and 15(3) obligate the State to ensure equality and special protections for children. When children are subjected to bullying and peer violence, their rights to education, equality, and dignity stand compromised.

Problem Statement

Despite these constitutional guarantees, India lacks a specialized anti-bullying law. Legal protections are fragmented across multiple statutes. The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) criminalizes assault (Sections 351–352), criminal intimidation (Section 503), and grievous hurt (Section 325). However, these provisions are general in nature and not tailored to address bullying in its institutional and peer-related dimensions.

The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 is primarily rehabilitative, focusing on children in conflict with the law and those in need of care and protection. It does not directly address bullying in schools. Similarly, the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 emphasizes child-friendly schooling but lacks enforceable anti-bullying mechanisms. While the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 criminalizes sexual harassment, bullying that does not fall within sexual misconduct remains unregulated.

Judicial interventions have highlighted the State’s duty to ensure safe school environments, but these interventions are scattered. In Avinash Mehrotra v. Union of India (2009), the Supreme Court held that schools must comply with safety norms to prevent harm to children. In University of Kerala v. Council of Principals of Colleges (2009), the Court laid down comprehensive guidelines on ragging, indirectly applicable to bullying at the school level. In Parents Forum for Meaningful Education v. Union of India (2001), the Delhi High Court declared corporal punishment unconstitutional, recognizing that violence within educational spaces violates children’s rights under Articles 14 and 21.

Further, in M.C. Mehta v. State of Tamil Nadu (1996), the Supreme Court prohibited child labour and underscored the State’s duty to provide safe conditions for children’s development, reinforcing the idea that safety in learning environments is a constitutional obligation. In Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India (1984), the Court emphasized the right to live with dignity, a principle equally applicable to children suffering bullying-induced trauma. More recently, in Laxmikant Pandey v. Union of India (1984), while dealing with inter-country adoption, the Court stressed the paramount importance of child welfare—a standard that must govern educational contexts as well.

Despite these pronouncements, no uniform statutory framework specifically addresses bullying in schools, leaving children without clear remedies and schools without binding duties.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

This paper seeks to address the following critical questions:

1. Do current Indian laws adequately address bullying and juvenile violence in schools?
2. How have judicial precedents and statutory provisions shaped the discourse on school safety and child protection?
3. Is there a demonstrable need for a specialized legislative framework in India to combat bullying, and what lessons can be drawn from international models?

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY

The significance of this research lies in reframing bullying as a legal and constitutional issue rather than a mere behavioural concern. By situating the discourse at the intersection of juvenile justice, education law, and criminal law, this paper demonstrates that existing laws are fragmented, reactive, and insufficiently preventive.

The study contributes in three dimensions:

1. It employs a rights-based approach, highlighting the violation of fundamental rights under Articles 14, 15(3), 21, and 21A.
2. It conducts a comparative study of international frameworks, including the United States’ state-level anti-bullying statutes and the United Kingdom’s Education and Inspections Act, 2006, to suggest reforms in India.
3. It advocates for a specialized legal framework that defines bullying, imposes preventive obligations on schools, and incorporates rehabilitative measures consistent with the Juvenile Justice system.

Thus, the study underscores the urgent necessity of a dedicated anti-bullying statute in India, one that ensures victim protection, institutional accountability, and juvenile rehabilitation in harmony with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), 1989, to which India is a signatory.

LEGAL FRAMEWORK & CASE LAWS

Constitutional Mandate

The Constitution of India provides the bedrock for child rights and protection in educational spaces.

• Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty): The Supreme Court in Francis Coralie Mullin v. Union Territory of Delhi (1981) interpreted the right to life as not merely animal existence but life with dignity. For children in schools, this necessarily includes a safe, secure, and violence-free environment. Bullying, whether physical, verbal, or psychological, infringes upon the dignity and mental integrity of children.
• Article 21A (Right to Education): Inserted by the 86th Constitutional Amendment, this provision makes free and compulsory education a fundamental right. In Avinash Mehrotra v. Union of India (2009), the Supreme Court held that education cannot be divorced from safety; unsafe school environments defeat the purpose of Article 21A. By analogy, bullying undermines this right by creating hostile learning environments.
• Articles 14 and 15(3) (Equality & Special Protection for Children): Article 14 guarantees equality before law, while Article 15(3) permits special laws for children. When schools or authorities fail to prevent bullying, they indirectly deny children equal access to education.
• Directive Principles (Article 39(e) & (f)): The State must ensure children are not forced into abuse and that their development occurs in conditions of freedom and dignity. These principles, though non-justiciable, have been used by courts to interpret fundamental rights.

Judicial Illustration:

• In Parents Forum for Meaningful Education v. Union of India (2001), the Delhi High Court declared corporal punishment unconstitutional, emphasizing that violence in schools—whether by teachers or peers—destroys the constitutional promise of dignity.
• In M.C. Mehta v. State of Tamil Nadu (1996), while addressing child labour, the Court highlighted the State’s responsibility to protect children from exploitation, which extends to educational institutions.

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC)

While the IPC does not specifically recognize “bullying,” several provisions can be applied depending on the severity of conduct.

• Section 323 & 325 (Voluntarily Causing Hurt/Grievous Hurt):

Physical bullying (hitting, slapping, kicking) can be prosecuted under these provisions. For instance, repeated assaults by peers leading to injuries would attract Section 325.

• Section 354 (Outraging Modesty of Women):

Gendered bullying, such as sexual harassment, stalking, or indecent touch, can fall within this section. In State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh (1996), the Court stressed the need for sensitivity in handling cases of sexual harassment against minors, a principle relevant for school-based abuse.

• Section 503 & 506 (Criminal Intimidation):

Verbal threats or psychological bullying, such as threatening a student with harm, can be covered under these provisions.

Critical Gap:

The IPC treats these incidents in isolation, as individual crimes, rather than recognizing bullying as a continuous, systemic form of peer abuse in schools. This fragmented application often fails to capture the psychological trauma associated with long-term bullying.

Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (JJ Act)

The JJ Act provides a framework for handling both children in conflict with law and children in need of care and protection.

• Section 2(14): Defines “child in need of care and protection,” which can include victims of bullying who face emotional or physical harm.
• Section 74: Protects the identity of child victims, ensuring confidentiality in proceedings. This is vital in bullying cases where stigmatization often silences victims.
• Rehabilitative Focus: Instead of criminalizing minors who engage in bullying, the Act emphasizes rehabilitation and reintegration, consistent with the principle of restorative justice.

Judicial Application:

In State v. Pradeep (Delhi HC, 2019), the Court stressed that juveniles who commit violent acts must be dealt with through rehabilitation rather than punitive measures. This is especially relevant for bullying, where the “offender” is often also a minor in need of guidance and reform.

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012

The POCSO Act criminalizes a wide range of sexual offences against children, providing a child-centric approach.

• Coverage: Sexual harassment, assault, and exploitation that occur under the guise of bullying (e.g., touching, sexualized taunts, coercion to perform obscene acts).
• Child-Friendly Procedures: Investigations must be sensitive, with provisions like recording statements in safe spaces and avoiding aggressive cross-examination.

Case Law:

In State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh (1996), the Supreme Court underscored that the dignity of minors must be preserved in sexual offence trials. This resonates with bullying cases involving sexual harassment.

Gap:
Bullying that is non-sexual in nature—such as exclusion, verbal abuse, or non-physical intimidation—falls outside POCSO’s scope, leaving victims with limited legal remedies.

Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act)

The RTE Act explicitly prohibits violence and harassment in schools.

• Section 17: Categorically prohibits physical punishment and mental harassment of children in schools. This is one of the few statutory provisions directly applicable to bullying.
• Section 24: Obligates teachers to create a child-friendly environment and safeguard children’s dignity.
• Institutional Responsibility: The Act implicitly holds schools accountable for failing to prevent bullying, though no explicit enforcement mechanism exists.

Judicial Precedent:

• In Society for Unaided Private Schools v. Union of India (2012), the Supreme Court emphasized that the RTE Act is a transformative law, ensuring inclusivity and child welfare. Safe learning environments were considered integral to this inclusivity.
• In Re: Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons (2016), although not directly about schools, the Court reaffirmed that humane and dignified treatment is a constitutional obligation, which by extension applies to students in educational institutions.

JUDICIAL GUIDELINES ON RELATED ISSUES

Indian courts have creatively extended protections to students through analogies:

• Anti-Ragging Jurisprudence: In University of Kerala v. Council of Principals of Colleges (2009), the Supreme Court upheld stringent anti-ragging regulations under the UGC Act. Although ragging typically applies to higher education, the principles of zero tolerance for peer violence and institutional responsibility can be extended to bullying in schools.
• Child Welfare Standard: In Laxmikant Pandey v. Union of India (1984), while addressing inter-country adoption, the Court emphasized that the “paramount welfare of the child” must guide all decisions concerning minors. This principle is equally relevant in addressing bullying.
• Right to Education with Dignity: In Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka (1992) and Unni Krishnan v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1993), the Court linked education to dignity and development, making it clear that hostile learning environments defeat constitutional guarantees.
• School Safety: In Avinash Mehrotra v. Union of India (2009), the Court required fire safety in schools, underscoring that the State and institutions bear a duty to ensure that the physical and psychological environment of schools is safe for children.

Critical Gaps

• No statutory definition of bullying, unlike ragging.
• Absence of preventive frameworks; laws only act post-incident.
• No mandatory anti-bullying committees or grievance redressal mechanisms in schools.
• Overlap and fragmentation across IPC, JJ Act, POCSO, and RTE Act with no unifying legislation.
• Lack of jurisprudential clarity on institutional accountability.

INTERNATIONAL COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVE

United Kingdom

What the law does (key features). Section 89 of the Education and Inspections Act 2006 requires the head teacher of a maintained school to determine measures to: (a) promote self-discipline among pupils; (b) encourage respect for others; and (c) prevent all forms of bullying (including measures communicated to pupils, staff and parents). The Department for Education’s statutory guidance Preventing and Tackling Bullying elaborates how schools should adopt written anti-bullying policies, investigate incidents, provide support to victims, and take proportionate disciplinary action. Importantly, the guidance recognizes the school’s power to regulate conduct that occurs off-site (including cyberbullying) where it affects the school environment (head teacher’s jurisdiction beyond premises).

Why it matters for India. The UK model makes anti-bullying obligations statutory, but operationalizes them through detailed guidance aimed at implementation (policies, designated staff, parental engagement, teacher training). Two takeaways for India are: (a) statutory mandate plus practical guidance creates enforceable duties while preserving administrative flexibility; and (b) explicit recognition that cyberbullying and off-site conduct may be regulated by schools when it materially affects school life is effective in curbing online harms that escape a purely on-premises rule.

Practical design features to note:

• Mandatory written anti-bullying policy at each school (content specified in guidance).
• Designation of an anti-bullying coordinator.
• Clear reporting and investigation timelines.
• Training and prevention activities as continuing obligations.

These ensure the statutory duty is implemented, rather than remaining aspirational.

United States: State-level statutes

In the U.S., anti-bullying law is enacted at the state level. Two robust examples:

• New Jersey — Anti-Bullying Bill of Rights Act (ABR). The ABR provides a broad statutory definition of harassment, intimidation and bullying (HIB), requires district policies, mandates reporting and investigation procedures, enforces timelines for action, obliges each district to appoint anti-bullying coordinators, requires schools to conduct self-assessments, and requires public reporting of HIB incidents and outcomes (transparency and accountability features).
• Massachusetts — An Act Relative to Bullying in Schools (2010). Requires every school district and school to develop and implement a comprehensive bullying prevention and intervention plan; defines the geographic and electronic scope of bullying (on school grounds, at school-sponsored events, at bus stops, and via technology where the conduct creates a hostile environment at school); mandates staff training and procedures to protect vulnerable students (e.g., those with disabilities).

U.S. state laws combine definitional clarity, mandatory institutional duties, timelines, reporting mechanisms and oversight: the ABR’s reporting + public disclosure function creates administrative pressure on schools to comply; Massachusetts’ expansive jurisdictional language helps bring cyberbullying within school regulatory reach when it affects the school environment. These instruments show how statute can be detailed and operationalized through district-level implementation requirements.

Important design elements for India to borrow:

• Statutory definition that captures repetition, power imbalance, and intent/effect.
• Mandatory school and district policy instruments with timelines.
• Data collection and public reporting to create accountability.
• Special protections for vulnerable groups (disability, gender identity, etc.).

INTERNATIONAL HUMAN-RIGHTS INSTRUMENTS AND UNESCO GUIDANCE

UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC). Article 19 obliges State Parties to protect children from “all forms of physical or mental violence” and to take legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to prevent and respond to violence (emphasis on “mental” violence: includes bullying). The UN Committee’s General Comment No. 13 (2011) reinforces that States must prohibit all forms of violence and implement prevention, monitoring and remedial systems.

UNESCO / global guidance. UNESCO’s School Violence and Bullying: Global Status Report (2017) sets out priority actions: data collection and monitoring; capacity building for teachers; whole-school approaches; child-centred prevention and restorative models; and special measures for vulnerable groups. UNESCO emphasizes preventative, evidence-based interventions rather than punitive-only responses.

Why this matters. CRC and UNESCO provide the normative frame that anti-bullying law must be rights-based: prevention, participation, non-discrimination, and remedy. Any domestic framework must align with CRC duties (legislative and administrative measures) and follow best-practice prevention strategies advocated by UNESCO.

LESSONS FOR INDIA: DETAILED SYNTHESIS AND LEGAL RATIONALE

From the UK/US/UN evidence base, the following principles are legally and practically salient for India. Each principle is explained with its legal rationale and how it addresses gaps in the Indian context.

Statutory clarity (definition of “bullying”)

Rationale: A statutory definition helps distinguish bullying from ordinary conflicts and from isolated criminal acts, enabling schools to apply consistent standards. It should capture repetition, power imbalance, and the range of conduct (physical, verbal, social, sexual and cyber).

How it closes gaps in India: Currently India has no statutory definition; RTE §17 prohibits physical punishment and mental harassment but does not define “bullying.” A clear definition will provide guidance for schools, will inform reporting thresholds, and help align disciplinary and rehabilitative responses (thus reducing ad hoc invocation of IPC offences).

Mandatory school obligations (policies, coordinators, training)

Rationale: Duty-bearing norms create institutional responsibility and reduce the “it’s not our problem” attitude. The UK and US models make policies and staff training mandatory rather than optional.

How it closes gaps in India: Many Indian schools lack written policies or trained counsellors. Mandating these under RTE rules or a dedicated statute ensures minimum standards and measurability.

Reporting & investigation protocols (time-bound, child-sensitive)

Rationale: Time limits, confidentiality safeguards, and impartial investigation protect victims and ensure procedural fairness for accused juveniles. Pediatric and child-sensitive processes reduce retraumatization.

How it closes gaps in India: Ad hoc school committees or teacher investigations are often opaque and biased. Statutory protocols will ensure independence and procedural fairness.

Data collection and oversight (transparency & accountability)

Rationale: Regular anonymized reporting and state oversight incentivize compliance and allow public policy to be evidence-driven. New Jersey’s public reporting creates pressure on districts to reduce incidents.

How it closes gaps in India: India lacks reliable national data on bullying; mandated reporting would allow targeted interventions (e.g., in states/schools with high incidence).

Restorative and rehabilitative focus for juvenile perpetrators

Rationale: The JJ Act’s ethos is rehabilitation, not retribution. Restorative approaches (apology, mediation, counselling, community service, skill building) address root causes and reduce recidivism.

How it closes gaps in India: Blanket criminalisation pushes juvenile bullies into the criminal justice system, stigmatizes them, and undermines rehabilitation.

Safeguards for vulnerable groups

Rationale: LGBTQ+ students, children with disabilities, and religious/ethnic minorities can be disproportionately targeted; statutory measures and teacher training must explicitly protect them.

How it closes gaps in India: Many schools lack sensitivity or IEP-level coordination; statutory clarity is necessary to ensure inclusive protection.

Jurisdictional breadth (including cyberbullying and off-site conduct)

Rationale: Bullying increasingly happens online and off campus; statutes that permit schools to act where conduct affects school life (as in UK and Massachusetts) are necessary.

Proposed reforms

Below I present the recommended reform architecture for India, explain the legal rationale for each design choice, and give sample statutory clauses with commentary. The recommended pragmatic pathway is Model Anti-Bullying Rules under the RTE Act, implemented centrally by the Ministry of Education/NCPCR with State adoption, to be followed by a standalone Act once capacity and evidence are in place.

1. Reform pathways: pros and cons

Amend RTE Act (insert comprehensive anti-bullying provisions):

• Pros: Uses existing education architecture and obligations; politically quicker; judicially defensible under Article 21A.
• Cons: May be perceived as administratively light (education law vs. criminal law) and requires careful drafting to cover off-site/cyber incidents.

Central Model Rules, State Adoption (preferred transitional option):

• Pros: Balances central standardization with federal implementation; allows piloting and iterative improvement.
• Cons: Requires coordinated state buy-in.

New Central Anti-Bullying Act:

• Pros: Most comprehensive and visible; creates national institutional mechanisms (reporting repository, oversight body).
• Cons: Legislative time and political capital required; requires budgetary commitments.

Recommendation: Begin with centrally issued Model Rules under RTE (fast, utilitarian), pilot for 12–24 months, then move toward a standalone statutory Act once operational design is validated.

2. Core legal design elements

(i) Definition of “bullying” (why precise wording matters)

• Legal functions of definition: (a) identifies acts that trigger statutory procedures; (b) sets threshold between disciplinary matters and offences warranting criminal referral; (c) guides evidence collection (repetition, power imbalance, intent/effect).
• Drafted definition (commentary):

“Bullying” means any repeated or persistent act or pattern of behaviour, verbal, physical, social, psychological or electronic, by a pupil or group of pupils that intentionally or negligently causes physical or emotional harm, creates a hostile environment, or materially interferes with a pupil’s right to education. The definition includes cyberbullying and conduct that exploits an imbalance of power or status.

Commentary: “Repeated” captures ongoing harm; the “negligently causes” wording allows scope for harm caused by reckless conduct; “materially interferes” ensures behaviour that affects learning qualifies.

(ii) School obligations (policy, coordinator, anti-bullying cell)

• Why: Institutionalizes responsibility and makes schools primary duty-bearers in day-to-day prevention.
• Sample clause (commentary):

Each recognised school shall adopt and publicise an Anti-Bullying Policy, appoint a School Anti-Bullying Coordinator (SABC), establish a School Anti-Bullying Committee (SABC), set out reporting and investigation procedures, and provide annual training for staff and orientation for students and parents. Schools must display policy excerpts prominently and submit an annual anonymized incident report to the District Education Officer.
Commentary: This clause mirrors UK/US requirements but is situated inside RTE’s school regulation sphere.

(iii) Reporting and investigation (procedural safeguards)

• Why: Protects victim confidentiality, ensures impartiality, reduces delay and bias.
• Sample clause:

Complaints must be acknowledged within 48 hours, preliminary fact-finding completed within 15 days, and remedial action (counselling, mediation, restorative practices) commenced within 30 days. Investigations shall be conducted by an impartial committee with child-sensitive procedures; identity of victims and witnesses shall be protected. Cases involving grievous bodily injury or sexual conduct shall be referred to law enforcement and the Juvenile Justice Board as appropriate.
Commentary: Time-limits prevent bureaucratic drift; referral threshold to criminal justice is preserved.

(iv) Remedies and rehabilitative responses

• Why: Distinguish responses between disciplinary (school level) and criminal (court level); emphasize restoration.
• Sample remedies: counselling and behavioural contracts; restorative conferences; supervised community service within school; therapeutic interventions; monitored reintegration plans; referral to Juvenile Justice Board only for conduct meeting criminal threshold.

(v) Data, monitoring and oversight

• Why: Evidence-based policy requires reliable data. Mandatory reporting and central aggregation (NCPCR or Ministry) allow measurement and public accountability.
• Sample clause:

State Education Departments and the NCPCR shall maintain anonymised annual statistics of reported bullying incidents, outcomes and remedial actions; these shall be published annually and used to develop targeted interventions.

(vi) Privacy, non-stigmatization and due process

• Why: Juveniles implicated must not be unduly stigmatized; Section 74 of the JJ Act already restricts identity disclosure of children in proceedings and must guide school processes (confidentiality sanctions for media or staff breach).

(vii) Integration with Juvenile Justice & criminal law

• Why: Serious conduct (assault, sexual offences) must remain within criminal law; juvenile procedural protections (JJ Act) must apply. The law must specify thresholds for referral to police/JJB and ensure the JJ Act’s rehabilitative ethos governs juvenile perpetrators.

3. Draft clauses

Below are draft clauses suitable for Model Rules under RTE or for insertion into an anti-bullying statute. Each clause is followed by a short drafting note.

Definition:

“Bullying” means any repeated or persistent behaviour, whether physical, verbal, psychological, electronic or social, carried out by a child or group of children against another child, which intentionally or recklessly causes, or is likely to cause, physical injury, emotional distress, fear, humiliation or exclusion, and which adversely affects the victim’s access to education.

Drafting note: Use “intentionally or recklessly” to capture deliberate acts and grossly negligent acts; “adversely affects access to education” ties the definition to Article 21A and school duty.

School Anti-Bullying Policy:

(1) Every school recognized under the RTE Act shall prepare an Anti-Bullying Policy and publish it on its notice board and website. (2) Policy shall include: definition; SABC appointment; reporting channels (including anonymous reporting); timelines for investigation; interim protective measures; confidentiality safeguards; remedial measures; anti-retaliation safeguards; and annual training obligations.

Drafting note: This creates a compliance checklist that is auditable by District Education Officers.

Reporting and Investigation:

(1) Any person (parent, teacher, student) may report alleged bullying to SABC. (2) The SABC shall record the complaint within 48 hours and commence an impartial inquiry within 7 days. (3) The inquiry shall be confidential, child-sensitive, and conclude factual findings within 15 days. (4) If the inquiry reveals conduct amounting to a cognizable offence (assault, grievous hurt, sexual offence), the school shall immediately refer the matter to law enforcement and the Juvenile Justice Board; the school shall continue non-punitive remedial measures for the victim.

Drafting note: Timelines balance promptness with procedural fairness.

Remedies:

Remedial measures shall prioritise the dignity and safety of the victim and the rehabilitation of the perpetrator. Remedies may include counselling, restorative conferencing, monitored reintegration plans, temporary separation, and in serious cases, referral to specialized rehabilitation programmes under the JJ Act.

Drafting note: Prioritizes non-criminal remedies for typical bullying while preserving criminal referral for serious misconduct.

Data & Oversight:

Schools shall submit anonymised incident summaries to the District Education Officer quarterly; the State Education Department shall compile annual reports and submit consolidated data to the NCPCR, which shall publish an annual national report.

Drafting note: Aggregation facilitates policy targeting and compliance checks.

Implementation roadmap: detailed steps and resource plan

A legal reform is only meaningful if implementable. Below is an operational roadmap, timeline and resource summary.

Phase 1 — Drafting & Institutional consensus (0–6 months)

• Ministry of Education (MoE), NCPCR and NCERT to prepare Model Anti-Bullying Rules under the RTE Act; engage State Education Departments, teacher unions, school management associations, and child rights NGOs in consultation.
• Produce practitioner guidance (investigation templates, reporting forms, counsellor job descriptions).

Phase 2 — Pilot & capacity building (6–24 months)

• Select diverse pilot States/districts (urban, rural, low-resource).
• Build capacity: train teachers, designate SABCs, recruit school counsellors (or assign district counsellors), and deploy simple reporting IT (mobile hotline / online portal).
• Monitor pilot with independent evaluation by an academic partner (university/NCERT).

Phase 3 — Scale-up (24–48 months)

• Based on evaluation, refine model rules and issue national notice for State adoption.
• Provide central grants for counselling positions in low-resource districts; provide online training modules (MOOC style) on child-sensitive investigations and restorative practice.

Phase 4 — Legislative consolidation (48+ months)

• Prepare a dedicated Central Act (if political will and evidence warrant), consolidating lessons, codifying national structures (data repository, NCPCR oversight) and aligning juvenile justice referrals.

Resource implications: counsellors (one per 500–800 students in larger districts), training budgets, IT platform costs, monitoring & evaluation funds. Initial central seed funding followed by state budget absorption is recommended.

Monitoring & evaluation metrics: incidence rate per 1,000 students (anonymized), time to resolve complaints, proportion of restorative outcomes vs criminal referrals, satisfaction surveys of victims and parents, recidivism rate among juvenile perpetrators.

Anticipated objections and reasoned legal responses

Below are likely objections to a statutory anti-bullying framework and doctrinally grounded responses.

Objection 1 — “This will criminalize children and bring them before courts.”

Response: The framework expressly distinguishes between school-level remedies (counselling, restorative conferencing, supervised reintegration) and criminal referrals (reserved for conduct that meets the statutory/criminal threshold, e.g., grievous hurt, sexual assault). Integration with the JJ Act ensures juvenile procedural protections and rehabilitative dispositions (not punitive incarceration). The JJ Act’s rehabilitation mandate (and confidentiality provisions like Section 74) will govern juveniles in conflict with law, minimising criminal stigma.

Objection 2 — “Education is a State subject — central rules will offend federalism.”

Response: The RTE Act already creates national standards for basic education (Article 21A). Central Model Rules under RTE are procedurally permissible; they set minimum national norms while allowing states to exceed them. Moreover, model rules drafted through consultative processes preserve federal input and state flexibility.

Objection 3 — “Resource constraints (counsellors, training) make this unfeasible, especially in rural schools.”

Response: The reform should be phased with pilots and central seed funding for initial roll-out; cost-effective measures (teacher training modules, district counsellor hubs, tele-counselling) can bridge gaps. Long-term savings (reduced dropout, mental health burdens) justify the investment.

Objection 4 — “Risk of false complaints, due process for accused students.”

Response: The rules must guarantee impartial, time-bound inquiries, the right to representation (parents or legal guardian), rebuttal opportunities, and confidentiality. Remedies should be proportionate and non-punitive except in serious cases.

Objection 5 — “Schools will resist increased regulation, citing autonomy.”

Response: The reforms preserve pedagogical autonomy but set minimum public-interest safety obligations, similar to fire and infrastructure safety norms (which courts have upheld as part of the State’s duty under Article 21/21A). Judicial precedent already recognizes school safety as a public duty (e.g., decisions interpreting RTE and safety obligations).

Monitoring, accountability and the role of institutions

Who enforces? At the school level: the SABC and School Anti-Bullying Committee monitor compliance. At the district level: District Education Officers audit reports and conduct capacity building. At the State level: State Education Departments aggregate and review. At national level: NCPCR or a designated unit in MoE would publish annual reports and recommend policy changes.

Judicial oversight and public interest litigation (PIL): Courts can be expected to supervise systemic failures through PILs (e.g., Court directions on school safety and ragging issues). Judicial precedents already reflect courts’ readiness to enforce school safety standards.

Sanctions for non-compliance: administrative penalties (show-cause notices, withdrawal of recognition for persistent non-compliance), mandatory remedial action plans, and periodic monitoring. Criminal sanctions would be limited to breaches of confidentiality or malicious disclosure of child identity in violation of JJ Act (Section 74) and to criminal acts themselves.

CONCLUSION

A practical, rights-based path for India is to adopt Model Anti-Bullying Rules under the RTE Act that: (a) define bullying comprehensively; (b) impose mandatory school duties (policy, coordinator, training); (c) establish child-sensitive, time-bound reporting and investigation protocols; (d) prioritize restorative remedies and integrate with the JJ Act for juvenile offenders; and (e) mandate anonymized data collection and NCPCR oversight. This phased approach is legally defensible under Article 21A, operationally feasible, and consistent with India’s international obligations under the CRC and best practices from the UK/US experience.

REFERENCES

• Education and Inspections Act 2006 (UK), s.89; Department for Education, Preventing and Tackling Bullying (statutory guidance). (Legislation.gov.uk)
• New Jersey Department of Education — Harassment, Intimidation and Bullying (Anti-Bullying Bill of Rights Act resources). (NJ.gov)
• Session Laws — Massachusetts An Act Relative to Bullying in Schools (2010); 603 CMR 49.00. (Massachusetts General Court)
• UNESCO, School Violence and Bullying: Global Status Report (2017). (UNESCO Documents)
• United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), Art. 19; UN Committee General Comment No. 13 (2011). (OHCHR)
• Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 — Section 17 (Prohibition of physical punishment and mental harassment). (Education Ministry of India)
• Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2015 — Section 74 (prohibition on disclosure of identity). (India Code)
• POCSO Act, 2012 — child-sensitive procedures and protections. (Wikipedia)
• University of Kerala v. Council of Principals of Colleges (Supreme Court of India, 2009) — anti-ragging jurisprudence. (Indian Kanoon)
• Avinash Mehrotra v. Union of India — interpretation of safe school environment as aspect of right to education (RTE discussions). (Right to Education)
• Francis Coralie Mullin v. Administrator, U.T. of Delhi — dignity as core of Article 21. (Indian Kanoon)
• M.C. Mehta v. State of Tamil Nadu — State duties to protect children from exploitation and hazardous environments. (Indian Kanoon)