Case Title: Elephant G.Rajendran … Petitioner
Versus
The Registrar-Genera and Anrs … Respondents
Date of Decision: Reserved On 16.06.2023
Pronounced On 22.06.2023
Coram: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
Citation: WP No.22460 of 2012
And
MP No.2 of 2012 and WMP Nos.16543 and 16547 of 2023
Introduction:
The case of Elephant G Rajendran vs The Registrar General and others is a landmark judgment that has had a significant impact on the legal profession in India. The case concerned the Madras Bar Association’s (MBA) bye-laws, which made it difficult for ordinary lawyers to become members of the association. The bye-laws required lawyers to pay a high membership fee, and to have a minimum number of years of practice. Rajendran challenged the bye-laws, arguing that they were discriminatory and violated the right of lawyers to equality. The issues raised between the parties are directly relating to the Judicial Institution and the Justice Delivery System. Thus, this Court thought fit to consider the related issues carefully in the interest of the Judicial Institution, Justice Delivery System and in the interest of public. This Court thought fit that the relief sought for by the petitioner is to be considered in the perspective of the issues raised and if necessary by moulding the relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Facts:
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. PH 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 netitioner’s son were no more.
Issues:
- Whether the MBA’s bye-laws were discriminatory?
- Whether the public facilities at the MBA were for public use?
- Whether the MBA could deny access to its public facilities to lawyers who were not members of the association?
Legal Analysis:
The 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 certain personal characteristics (whether caste, or gender, or menstruation) can justify relegating individuals to an inferior position in society”, the Court observed.
Elite society of lawyers Should not be created with Public cost.
“When such Associations are formulated inside the Court premises/public buildings and enjoying the public facilities at the cost of the pubic, then they are bound to admit the Lawyers, who all are willing to become the members of Bar Association”.
Referring to the provisions of the Advocates Act and the BCI Rules, the Court said that the choice of membership of an Association is not of the Association, but of the individual Advocate.
The Court said that creating class within the class of lawyers cannot be construed as intelligible differentia. It is an improper discrimination by conferring privileges upon a class of Lawyers, which is arbitrary and not falling within the classification of reasonable distinction.
After perusing the Byelaws of the Madras Bar Association, the Court opined that that it is very difficult for a lawyer to become a member of the Madras Bar Association. Qualified members alone can propose the name of the Lawyer to become member. Therefore, choice is provided to the existing members. The existing members will have their own choice in selecting the members. Such allocation would undoubtedly cause not only discrimination but lead to the constitution of an elite community of lawyers within the lawyers community. Such a constitution of elite community of lawyers must not be allowed at the cost of the public, more-so in the public premises.
The Court also stated that when the High Court Administration granted space for Bar Associations by providing free electricity and other facilities at the cost of public, such Associations cannot be allowed to restrain the practicing lawyers from utilising such public facilities and in the event of allowing such Bar Associations to have Monopoly, the same is to be construed as unfair practice, unconstitutional and denial of basic rights to the other practicing lawyers.
Judgement:
Justice SM Subramaniam, presiding over the case, declared the incident as “despicable” and recognized the act of discrimination as a breach of constitutional guarantees, stating that it could be construed as ‘untouchability.
S.M. Subramaniam, J. gave the following directions:
Madras Bar Association was directed to pay a some of Rs.5,00,000/- to the Senior Advocate towards compensation for the untoward incident happened in the Madras Bar Association premises on 06-01-2012, since it is vicariously liable for the conduct of its own members.
It also has been directed to admit respondents no.3 and no.4 as members of the Madras Bar Association within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Madras Bar Association was directed to distribute applications for membership to all the interested practising lawyers in the High Court of Madras and admit them as members without discriminating any lawyer on the basis of caste, gender, religion, economic status, personal affiliations with Senior Advocates or dignitaries and political affiliations; without reference to the draconian Bye-Laws regarding eligibility criteria to become the member of the Association; or by amending the Bye-Laws suitably.
In the event of failure on the part of the Association, the Madras High Court Administration and the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu are bound to initiate all appropriate actions in the manner known to law.
The Bar Associations functioning in the High Court premises are directed to obtain prior permission from the Registrar General, Madras High Court for conducting / holding celebrations, functions, birthday parties, lunch parties etc., in the interest of safety and security in the High Court Premises.
Shifting of Madras Bar Association from “High Security Zone” to any other place in the High Court premises is within the exclusive domain of the High Court administration. It is for the Registrar General, Madras High Court to initiate appropriate actions by placing all the facts before the Chief Justice of Madras High Court.
Conclusion:
The court’s decision was a victory for the right of all lawyers to equality and access to public facilities. The decision has helped to ensure that the legal profession is more inclusive and accessible to all lawyers, regardless of their financial means or social status.The case is also significant because it sent a strong message to bar associations that they cannot function as “elite societies” at public cost. The court’s decision made it clear that bar associations have a responsibility to serve the public interest, and that they cannot discriminate against lawyers who are not members of the association.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY JANGAM SHASHIDHAR.
