The Madras High Court's Madurai Bench has recently overturned a prior ruling by a single judge bench, which had granted ₹25,00,000 in compensation to a student who lost his right eye in a school incident.

The division bench, consisting of Justice P. Velmurugan and Justice K.K. Ramakrishnan, determined that the single judge's decision was made without a thorough examination of the facts or the necessity for additional evidence.

"...to prove the allegations levelled in the affidavit requires some evidence. Hence, cases of this nature writ Court cannot decide the issue by exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India," said the bench.

Case Brief: -

The case originates from an incident on May 5, 2010, involving Remish Fedlin, a ninth-grade student at St. Maria Goretty Higher Secondary School in Kanyakumari, who suffered an eye injury during special classes held on school grounds. During a scuffle with another student, Jeya Frank, Remish was struck in the eye by a stone, resulting in permanent vision loss. His mother, K. Renjees Mary, subsequently filed a writ petition seeking ₹50,00,000 in compensation, alleging negligence on the part of the school and the State Government's Education Department.

In 2017, a single judge ruled in favor of the petitioner, ordering the Tamil Nadu government and educational authorities to pay ₹25,00,000 in compensation. The judgment found the school and government officials liable for failing to prevent the incident and for conducting special classes during a holiday, contrary to a government directive.

However, the Tamil Nadu government and education officials appealed this decision to the division bench, asserting that they were not responsible for the incident, which stemmed from a personal altercation between two students. They also argued that the single judge's ruling was made without sufficient evidence and without giving officials prior notice regarding the case.

In its ruling, the division bench highlighted that matters of liability and negligence required a proper hearing with appropriate evidence, which could not be adequately addressed in writ proceedings. The court stated that the single judge should have allowed both parties the opportunity to present evidence. It concluded that the nature of the injuries and the responsibility of those involved could only be established through formal legal proceedings.

Ultimately, the division bench ruled in favor of the appellants, overturning the single judge's compensation order and accepting the government's appeal. However, the court permitted the petitioner to seek other legal remedies in a different forum.