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 11th 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.
