'No Elite Society Of Lawyers At Public Cost' : Madras High Court Directs Madras Bar Association To Give Membership Without Any Discrimination

The Madras High Court recently came down heavily on the Madras Bar Association, for its strict bye-laws making it difficult for an ordinary lawyer to become a member of the association. The court also directed the Association to pay five lakh rupees as compensation to Senior Advocate Elephant G Rajendran for denial of drinking water to his son in 2012 by a senior lawyer. Justice SM Subramaniam noted that the bye-laws of the Association have been formulated in such a manner that ordinary Advocates find it difficult to get membership thus resulting in class discrimination. The court also noted that since the association was functioning inside the court premises and enjoying all the benefits including free electricity, such elitism could not be allowed in a public place using the money. “Creating an Elite Community within the Lawyers Group may fall under the Fundamental Right of 'Right to Association'. However, such Associations can be constituted outside the premises of the High Court Buildings, without enjoying the public premises or taxpayer’s money. Within the premises of the Public Institution such discriminations are impermissible and would cause not only heart-breaking issues but violative of fundamental right of the citizen of our Great Nation.” the court noted. The present case was filed by Senior Advocate Elephant Rajendran, who alleged that his son Neil Rashan was prevented from drinking water at the MBA hall by another Senior Advocate Mr. P.H Pandian. Rajendran contended that since the Association was functioning upon public money, the facilities provided could not be denied to other practicing lawyers. He added that the actions of the Association were discriminatory and deprived lawyers from utilizing public facilities. Among other things, Rajendran also contended that the association did not follow a transparent and democratic norm/guideline while admitting members. He also added that the action of the association- hosting meetings, parties, etc within the High-Security Zone of the Madras High Court posed a threat to the High Court. He also brought to the attention of the court various instances of discrimination where the association had arbitrarily and in a discriminatory manner, not considered the membership application of different persons. On the other hand, the association denied all such allegations and submitted that the incident of denying drinking water was incorrect. It was also submitted that the Association had, since then fitted two water cans for the usage of practicing lawyers. Citing all the contributions made by the Association, towards the High Court and in general, it was submitted that the matter may be closed since both the Senior Advocate and the petitioner’s son were no more. To this, the court noted that social issues did not die with persons and it was necessary to address the social issues in the interest of the future of the country. The court added that such issues could not be left casually as it would affect future lawyers who are necessary for the development of the Justice Delivery System. The court also observed that it was the primary duty of the Judicial Institutions to provide conducive atmosphere to all the practicing Lawyers enabling them to have utmost trust on the Judicial System. “We cannot leave a bad precedent to future generation Lawyers. Judges are duty bound to ensure that no discrimination in any form is practiced and impartial system prevail for creating trust and comfort in the mind of the Lawyers and litigants in the process of Justice Delivery System.” the court said. Observing that practicing lawyers cannot be deprived of access to drinking water merely on the ground of membership, the court added that the present case was regretful and that both bar and bench should avoid such trivial and unwarranted situations. “In a profession of such a vivid history, it is regretful to say the least, to witness the instances of the nature of the present kind. Lawyers are the Officers of the Court in the Administration of Justice. The Bench as well as the Bar have to avoid unwarranted situations and trivial issues that hamper the cause of justice and are in no one’s interest.” the court said. 'Untouchability' includes all forms of social exclusionThe Court observed that 'untouchability' was not just caste-based discrimination but also all forms of social ostracism and exclusion which have their basis in ritual ideas of purity/pollution and hierarchy/subordination."A broad reading of Article 17 means that not only the caste-based practice of untouchability falls within the ambit of the constitutional prohibition, but practices that bear a family resemblance to “untouchability” are captured as well. This requires the Court to ask whether a particular practice, like untouchability, is a practice of social subordination, exclusion, and segregation, based upon an idea that...

'No Elite Society Of Lawyers At Public Cost' : Madras High Court Directs Madras Bar Association To Give Membership Without Any Discrimination

Upasana Sajeev

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Upasana Sajeev

'No Elite Society Of Lawyers At Public Cost' : Madras High Court Directs Madras Bar Association To Give Membership Without Any Discrimination

Upasana Sajeev

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Upasana Sajeev

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers