Minister for Education, Sport, and Culture v. NM
[2008] JRC 034
In the Royal Court, Samedi Division
Before Commissioner Clyde-Smith, Esq., Jurat Le Brocq, and Jurat Newcombe
Decided on March 04, 2008

Relevancy of the Case: Interim injunction against the plaintiff for making false allegations about his children’s school authorities on his websites

Relevant Facts of the Case

• The defendant has two children, a fourteen-year-old son and a seven-year-old daughter. The school authorities internally investigated an incident involving the defendant’s son and another boy.
• The investigation report revealed that the defendant permitted his son to hit the other child, resulting in his son’s suspension for three days.
• The defendant raised a complaint with the Education Department. The department concluded that the school authorities appropriately dealt with the matter.
• The defendant claimed that the other boy bullied his son, which is why he acted in self-defence.
• After this incident, the police reached the defendant’s home. His son expressed the fear of returning to school; however, the school assured him there would be no punishment.
• Despite this reassurance, his son returned to school only to be suspended an hour later.
• The defendant is unsatisfied with how the school has treated him and his son and seeks redress.
• The defendant created multiple websites to post allegations against the persons related to the Education Department and the headmistress. One website also displayed the headmistress’ photo.

Prominent Arguments by the Counsels

• The plaintiff’s counsel argued that the defendant acted aggressively, offensively, and unacceptable.
• The defendant, appearing in person, submitted that the Education Department had initiated these proceedings to cover up the truth about his son. He further submitted that the plaintiff also intends to remove his daughter from the school.

Opinion of the Bench

• The distress of the headmistress was very visible in the court. The Leadership and Management Committee has also written a letter in support.
• It is the duty of the plaintiff to ensure the imposition of interim injunctions to protect the headmistress and deputy headmistress.
• There is strong prima facie evidence against the defendant for harassment and bullying. The way he has sought justice is unacceptable.
• The defendant must appropriately seek redressal in the interest of his son.

Final Decision

• The court granted an interim injunction in the plaintiff’s favour.

Yagyanseni Acharya, an undergraduate student at VIT School of Law, Chennai, prepared this case summary during her internship with The Cyber Blog India in January/February 2024.