In loco parentis doctrine and Article 21 together create a robust but under-enforced protection framework for children in Indian schools. Discuss with reference to recent judicial developments.

The doctrine of in loco parentis places a school in the position of a parent during school hours and transit, while Article 21 has been judicially expanded to cover bodily safety and dignity. Together they form a strong normative shield — yet enforcement remains the weak link.

Strength of the framework

• Judicially expanding duty of care: the Karnataka High Court refused to quash a criminal case against a Mandya private school after a Class 4 student lost vision when fellow pupils sprayed coloured sparklers in an unattended school bus, holding child safety to be a "solemn obligation mandated under the statute", not charity [1].
• Criminal, not merely civil, liability: schools cannot settle statutory breaches purely through compensation; institutional negligence attracts penal consequences.
• Statutory backing: the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, strengthened by the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019 (No. 32 of 2019), supplies enhanced penalties for safety violations [2]; the RTE Act, 2009 anchors a broader duty of care [3].
• Rights continuum: permanent disability from negligence triggers rehabilitation obligations under the RPwD Act, 2016 [4], reinforced by India's UNCRC commitments to protect children from all physical harm [5].

Enforcement deficits

• Rule-level gaps: the mandatory attendant/ayah norm flows from state rules and MoRTH circulars, not the parent Act, weakening uniform enforcement.
• Split jurisdiction between transport and education departments dilutes accountability; RTO fitness checks on school buses are sporadic.
• Reactive judiciary: liability is fixed after tragedy, as the Mandya case shows — no preventive audit mechanism exists.
• Transparency deficit: parents cannot verify in real time whether attendants, GPS or speed governors are functional.

The framework is therefore sound in principle but thin in practice. The way forward lies in codifying attendant and tracking norms within central rules, mandating annual third-party safety audits with public disclosure, and a single-window state authority for school transport. Such measures would convert Article 21's promise from judicial rhetoric into everyday institutional practice.