‘Education No Longer Sacred, Has Become Lucrative Business’: Madras High Court on School Safety

The Madras High Court recently observed that education, once regarded as a sacred and “holy” pursuit symbolised by Goddess Saraswati, has now “become a lucrative business,” as it examined the death of a five-year-old girl inside a private school campus in Tenkasi district.

The bench of Justice B. Pugalendhi made the observation while dealing with a petition filed by the child’s father seeking transfer of investigation, raising concerns not only about the manner in which educational institutions function today but also about accountability when incidents occur within such campuses.

The death of the petitioner’s daughter took place on March 24, 2026, inside the school where she was studying in UKG. According to the version projected by the school management, the child died after being hit by a car driven in a rash and negligent manner by two individuals who had entered the campus to meet a staff member.

Court recorded that the school in question was operating within a fully enclosed campus and was also running a multi-speciality hospital opposite the school, a factor it noted while making its broader observation on the commercialization of education.

The petitioner, however, disputed the version of events and highlighted several irregularities. He stated that he was not informed by the school authorities about the incident and only discovered his daughter’s death after reaching the hospital when she did not return home in the school van.

Court took note of the petitioner’s contention regarding the timing of the occurrence. While the school claimed that the accident took place in the afternoon around 3:30 pm to 3:55 pm, the petitioner pointed out that the child’s lunch box was returned untouched, raising doubts that the incident may have occurred earlier during lunch hours.

Concerns were also raised about the handling of evidence. The petitioner alleged that CCTV footage from both the school premises and the hospital was not initially shared and that the police had failed to promptly secure and act on such crucial material.

Court also noted allegations that the school management had approached the family with an offer of ₹20 lakh as compensation and sought to dissuade them from initiating legal action, though the petitioner claimed he was pressured into signing a document through family members.

Examining the conduct of the investigation, court found significant lapses. It recorded that although the police were informed about the incident at an early stage and were present at the school premises, the FIR was registered only at 10:20 pm on the same day. Initially, the case was registered against unknown persons, and the accused were identified only the following day through an alteration report.

Court observed that in such circumstances, the police ought to have promptly identified the vehicle and secured the accused, particularly when CCTV cameras were available and officers were already on the scene. It also questioned how the vehicle involved in the incident was not immediately seized and how the accused were allowed to leave the premises.

Noting these deficiencies, court held that the investigation conducted so far did not inspire confidence and that there were reasonable grounds to doubt whether it had been carried out in a fair and proper manner. It emphasised that victims have a right to a fair investigation, which forms part of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution.

While declining to transfer the probe to the CB-CID, court directed the Superintendent of Police, Tenkasi, to withdraw the case from the present investigating officer and assign it to a competent officer of the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police or Inspector to ensure a proper investigation.

Court further directed that the petitioner be provided with copies of the CCTV footage obtained from the school and the hospital, along with the postmortem report, and that he be kept informed about the progress of the investigation.

The petition was disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach the court again if the investigation is not conducted in a satisfactory manner.

Also read: Madras High Court on current education system

Case Title: V.Marisamy vs. The Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli and others

Order Date: 10 April, 2026

Bench: Justice B. Pugalendhi