The Fine Line Between Discipline And Cruelty in India's Elite Schools

A sixteen-year-old is still a child — one who learns, falters, and often requires guidance more than exclusion. If vaping could thrive inside a monitored campus, doesn't that also raise questions about institutional vigilance?

A sixteen-year-old boy, studying under the International Baccalaureate (IB) syllabus at one of Bengaluru's most prestigious international schools, now finds himself in the middle of a deeply human story — one that questions not only a child's lapse in judgment but also a school's duty of care and the system's understanding of teenage vulnerability.

The case began when the school expelled the young boy after finding him involved in vaping on campus — a practice that, though harmful and prohibited, has become alarmingly common among adolescents. His parents, devastated but determined, took the matter to court. The court, after reviewing the situation, directed the school to allow the student to rejoin classes. But what seemed like relief quickly turned bittersweet: the boy was allowed back only as a day scholar, not as a boarder, even though the order had not restricted boarding.

Adding to the complexity, the court order itself contains a significant drafting error — it references a "petitioner No. 3" in the context of boarding, when in fact only two petitioners exist in this matter. More critically, the order is entirely silent on the question of the boy's boarding — neither granting nor restricting it. This vacuum in the order has effectively been exploited, leaving the boy's boarding status entirely unaddressed and allowing the school to sidestep the spirit of the court's direction. His advocates have flagged that the order requires modification before it can fully achieve its intended objective.

At first glance, it appears the school is exercising its right to maintain discipline. But a closer look reveals a deeper tension between punishment and protection, between rules and rehabilitation. A sixteen-year-old is still a child — one who learns, falters, and often requires guidance more than exclusion. If vaping could thrive inside a monitored campus, doesn't that also raise questions about institutional vigilance?

Here, the school's responsibility is not merely moral but legal. Under India's Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act), every recognized institution — including private and international schools — must provide a safe, inclusive environment for learning. Section 17 of the Act explicitly prohibits physical or mental harassment and obligates schools to adopt a child-friendly, corrective approach to discipline.

Furthermore, the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) and the respective State Commissions require all educational institutions — including those following international curricula like IB or IGCSE — to conduct regular safety audits, student counseling sessions, and awareness programs on substance abuse and emotional wellbeing. These are not optional obligations; they are part of the Code of Conduct for Schools framed under the Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005. Any institution operating in India must comply with these national child-safety standards, regardless of its affiliation or syllabus.

Similarly, the CBSE's Circular No. 12/2021 and the IB Organisation's global child protection policy framework both emphasize staff sensitization, constant supervision in boarding houses, and early intervention through counseling when students show signs of risky behavior. The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 also upholds the principle of reform and rehabilitation, requiring that minors in such situations be guided, not abandoned.

In this Bengaluru case, the court's order — though silent on boarding — clearly sought to protect the boy's right to education. The school's refusal to reinstate him as a boarder, arguably a part of his holistic learning environment, falls short of the inclusive and empathetic approach that modern education and child welfare laws envision.

This story, at its core, is not about vaping alone. It is about what kind of educators and adults we choose to be. True discipline is not measured by how strictly we punish, but by how deeply we guide. The boy's mistake can be a turning point — not only for him, but for an entire school community learning that safeguarding children sometimes means standing beside them, not sending them away.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed are solely those of the author and do not reflect the views or stance of the organization. The organization assumes no responsibility for the content shared.

(Girish Linganna is an award-winning science communicator and a Defence, Aerospace & Geopolitical Analyst. He is the Managing Director of ADD Engineering Components India Pvt. Ltd., a subsidiary of ADD Engineering GmbH, Germany)