 "Ryan International School in Gurugram flouted several security guidelines issued by state police for safety of students")
With questions being raised over the security lapses that led to the killing of a 7-year-old boy in Gurugram’s Ryan International School on Friday, a three-member fact-finding committee has found major security lapses on part of its management. Apart from not constructing separate toilets for bus drivers and conductors, and installing inadequate CCTV cameras in the campus, the school has been found to have flouted multiple other guidelines issued by Gurugram Police for the safety of children in schools.Below is a list of those guidelines that were violated by Ryan International School: Section 2.2.1: There should be only one entry/exit point to the premises; side gates are to be avoided. In case there is a side gate, this must be manned by a security guard maintaining a record of every entry and exit in a register. The accused confessed to the police that the security guards did not register his entry into the main campus because they recognised him. Section 2.2.3: Access to areas like bus area, gym, swimming pools, sports rooms/fields, canteen, toilets should be confined to persons whose presence in the area is required, and are therefore specifically authorised access to these areas; loitering in such specific areas by unauthorised personnel should be prevented to reduce chances of problems arising (e.g. bus driver seen near children’s toilets, or canteen boy seen near sports field) Accordingly, Admin/Security department must draw up a list of such restricted areas and names of persons permitted entry, and these must be displayed on an internal notice board on the premises. Section 4.5.4: There should be separate toilets for girls and boys, for teachers, and for support staff. The support staff in particular should not be allowed to use toilets meant for children, even if they are assisting in this section. A three-member fact finding committee found that there were no separate toilets and washrooms for the 40 bus drivers and conductors of the school.
Section 2.2.5: Specifically for bus drivers and conductors, whether employed by the school or contracted out, access area must be limited to just the bus area, and specific instructions must be given to them on which areas are out of bounds for them. It is therefore suggested that a toilet is provided in this area or other such clearly specified area with visible though secluded access, to prevent need for such persons to enter the actual school premises.
Access area for the bus drivers and conductors were not restricted to the bus area alone in this case, which is how the accused walked into the students’ bathroom/ Section 2.3.1: Cameras must cover all critical areas of the premises. Section 2.3.2: While CCTV at entrance to toilets is essential, it is not permitted to fit CCTVs inside toilets, to ensure that dignity is not compromised. Inadequate number of CCTV cameras were installed in the school premises, the committee found. Section 3.1.2: Apart from the verification of antecedents, it is recommended that the interview panel consists of the school counsellor who is able to provide a psychological profile of the person being considered for employment, to ensure that these are in tune with the values and ethos of the school. Section 3.1.3: Till such time references are being verified, the services of the person may be utilized but only on probation. No background check was done for the accused bus conductor before he was employed. Section 3.1.4: All selected candidates must provide a signed affidavit to the institution that they have not been accused of offences under POCSO (Protection of Children from Sexual Offences) Act 2012, the JJ (Juvenile Justice, Care & Protection of Children) Act 2000 and any other sexual and/or violent crimes under any other provision of law that has been in force.
