18-year old Radhika Garg from Ullal was forced to argue her own case in High Court after her lawyers opted out without citing any reasons. She not only managed to argue her own case, but managed to get an investigation instituted.
Radhika, I commend your grit and resolve to fight the very system that was supposed to help you. Wishing you all the best in this case and the life after this case.
This a case of alleged retaliation of College Authorities for not giving favorable testimony. The retaliation was in the form of attendance shortage rendering Radhika barred from wiriting her II PUC exams. There is even allegations of college reprisal in the form of false case against her parents.
For Radhika, the trouble began even before the exam commenced. Initially, the college barred her from writing the examination since she fell short of the compulsory 75 per cent attendance required to qualify. In retaliation, Radhika, who had scored 94 per cent marks in the mid-term examination, decided to take legal recourse.
“I was informed of the shortage of attendance when I went to appear for the computer practical examination,” she said.
The court, in its interim order, permitted her to write the examination, but the declaration of results was subject to the outcome of the writ petition. After the II PU results were announced, the college management withheld her results. “I had hired two advocates, who retired from the case without notice. Therefore, I decided to appear as party in person and fend for myself,” she said.
Justice Ashok B Hinchigeri, HC, after hearing the case, argued by Radhika, has directed the education officer to probe the matter and look into the original records and report to the court by the next hearing .
This is a classic case of when ordinary souls are pushed to wall, let down by the fraternity which was obligated to help them will take up the matter in their own hands. They have nothing to lose, but to gain everything. When 'Push Comes to Shove', what do you do?
Since the matter is sub-judice, there is no scope for commenting on merit of this case. To be fair, we need to hear the other side of the story also. Therefore let our discussion is not veered into that direction.
My objective of writing this post is also different. My arguments in fact are these:
- Questionable role of the 2 lawyers who dropped out mid-way of the case. How long the legal fraternity will continue to hold the people/system to ransom? Why is that they are beyond the reach of the very law that they practice every day? Even the judiciary turns a blind eye to the high handedness of the advocates?
- Cleaning up of this nexus - Black money >>politics >>diversified business >>School>colleges>>Hospitals.
It seems government monopoly is substituted by authoritarian ways of the private enterprise.
-Syed
Forward this Blog entry
