ABHIMANYUS AND ARJUNAS

OF ABHIMANYUS FIRST:

        

A 15 year old boy passes his matric exam with flying colours.  He scores 91%.  He is happy, his parents are happy.  His friends of the same class are all given admission into the 11^th on the very day of results or on the very next day – even those who have scored lesser – in his own school.  But in his case, the school says ‘we do not want to give admission to you because your father is one of the members of the Parents’ Association’. 

The Parents’ Association approaches the Principal. He gives a cold shoulder.  After repeated pleas, a representation is made to the District Collector, Chief Educational Officer and Inspector of Matriculation Schools.  An enquiry is ordered. 

When the Inspector of matriculation schools visits the concerned school, the management parades almost all the teachers, armed with separate letters, addressed to the Inspector of Matriculation Schools, stating that the behaviour of the concerned student was bad.  Reason for their not taking action earlier was that they did were waiting for him to complete his Matric.  Among the accusations about character were that he used to disturb his pals in the class; he used to disturb others standing around him during assembly, during prayer, even during playing of national anthem; he used to back-answer to teachers; he used to be rough; he was using his father’s post (father works as a courier in a Bank), he did not listen in the class; he showed ugly signs to some female teacher; because of him another female teacher had resigned from the school, etc. (Incidently the Times of India had verified this allegation and had reported that the Teacher concerned had told them that the student was in fact an excellent student)  The accusations would look like the boy was a monster. And even one of the said acts, had they actually been performed, in a private school, that too a Christian Institution at that, would not have been tolerated (quite rightly) and the parent would have been summoned and reprimanded and if repeated would have been entered in the progress card or the diary of the student.  No such thing had happened.  Further, the Inspector of Matriculation School had also quite conscientiously conducted an enquiry with the other class mates of the student.  They all refuted the contentions of the management-tutored-statements of their teachers.  Accordingly, the IMS issues a letter to the school management stating that their accusation against the student lacks evidence on enquiry and that considering the attendance of the student and his percentage of marks he may be considered for admission in the same school.

There is silence from the side of the management.  Since it had already been almost 3 weeks since the classes had started and nothing was yet known regarding the decision of the management of the school, the Parents’ Association decided to meet the Principal before once again taking up the matter with the State administration.  This time, to give moral support to these parents, the Parents’ Association representatives of other schools in the city and particularly in the vicinity decide to meet the Parent of the said boy outside the school. 

But there is a battalion of Police posted on the outskirts of the school to prevent the parents from even standing and talking there.  Upon stating that the SWAP had made a complaint to the Commissioner of Police on the issue and that we were also interested in knowing the outcome of the issue, the Inspector assures to know the same from the Principal.  He takes the Parents of the boy, the student and one representative of the Parents’ Association of the school and meets the Principal.  All this happens after the children have gone to their classes after their morning assembly.  The Principal refusing to give any clear cut answer, merely states that he has already replied to the IMS.

There after the parents representatives decide to meet the District Collector again. 

In the meanwhile, it is reported that after the Parents left the place, a battalion of teaching or non-teaching staff started abusing the gathered media persons, from within the campus and it is also stated that some of these visuals had been aired.

In the meanwhile, not knowing what to do, the Parent is advised by his well wishers to approach the Hon’ble High Court on a writ. And upon knowing that the school was not going to reconsider their decision, he gives a go ahead to his advocate to file the Writ in the Court.

The High Court admits the petition and issues notice to the Government and the concerned school.

In the meanwhile, the IMS who gets the reply of the school, finds that the school had given fresh conditions for admitting the student.  They wanted an undertaking from the Parents’ Association and the Parent of the student that there will not be any ‘interference’ from them in the administration of the school.  The demand against the so called ‘interference’ was nothing but a blatant demand that there should not be any questions about whatever fees the school shall determine in violation of the Act and Rules framed by the Government for the purpose – because the Parents’ Association it self had been formed only due to this dispute.

In the High Court the school reiterates all the allegations against the character of the student which they had made before the IMS and also show case the letters given by all the teachers on the same day.  They also allege misbehaviour on the part of the Parent and the Parents’ Association.  They plead that due to these they were not able to run the school at all.  The school which had no qualms in demanding higher fees than that was determined, in spite of an Act of Legislature and Rules framed by the Government and the specific injunction against such action, issued by the District Collector in his meeting on 10.3.2012, however had no qualms in claiming that the mere presence of some parents outside the gates of the school to the grieving student and his parents a moral support was a ‘demonstration’ or a ‘dharna’ against the injunctions of the District Collector in the very same meeting and that the peace and tranquility of their institution was disturbed.

And the Hon’ble High Court’s Honourable Judge who heard the matter swallowed the entire tale put forth by the School.  It was not even asked how the final decision of the school in the matter was stated to have been taken on the very day the Principal was filing the counter affidavit and how such a decision could be taken on that date, when the matter was already sub-judice.

The Government Pleader who also had received notice in the case, who ought to have got the matters verified with the District Collector or CEO of the District, did not find it fit to put forth before the Honourable Court that the administration of the District and Education department had found that the allegations were without substance.  In fact the IMS had clearly stated in his letter to the school that their condition regarding Association not ‘interfering’ with administration of the school was a clear contradiction in terms of their earlier position.  This fact also the Government Pleader failed to put forth before the Judge.

The claim of the school that the Parents’ Association was a rebel body and that it was functioning in spite of an official PTA functioning in the school, which was a blatant lie, was also not countered by the State’s PP.

The Court also did not go into why there would be a Rebel body, particularly of Parents and even if it existed, whether constitutionally it was incorrect for adults to form associations in the society, etc.

There was no attempt to verify the allegation of the School that these poor parents wielded great influence with the Police.

Result was that the Hon’ble High Court in dismissing the petition of the parent on behalf of the student came down heavily on the character of the student, the Parent and justified the action of the School.  All this apart from their holding that even other wise the Miniority Institutions were free to decide on Admissions on their own.

If anyone thought that such a ‘Chackra Vyuha’ of a legal system would not have been engineered in this country against a tender youth of 15 years, that ‘maharathas’ with legal acumen would be arrayed against him and law will be a mute witness in the execution, they are wrong.  It has happened in the present age and the student is from Coimbatore.

No one involved in the episode, for a moment appears to have considered what respect the young mind would have for our system of justice and jurispudence, in his future years of life.

AND ON ARJUNAS NOW:

          If some one thought that only novice of our legal system could be felled like this, they are wrong. 

Even when a Senior Advocate of the High Court who was to go to the Supreme Court to file a case – a public interest petition – was brutally beaten up and maimed, after more than a decade of proceedings, the Hon’ble judicial system has not been able to lay its hands on the persons who had perpetuated such a heinous crime - against one of their own officers.

Reacting to this, the victim himself a great legal luminary stated:  “There is always a divine punishment which one cannot escape”.

If these are indications for the times to come, the dark ages are back again.