LI Network
Published on: November 09, 2023 at 10:30 IST
The Madras High Court has dismissed allegations of caste discrimination against the Madras Bar Association. The court’s decision came during a hearing to overturn a single judge’s order that had previously criticized the association’s membership policies.
The High Court emphasized that the decision to grant or deny membership lay within the purview of the association and not all individuals could raise grievances in this regard.
The High Court asserted that the allegation of caste-based discrimination within the Madras Bar Association was unfounded, emphasizing that discrimination could not be inferred from the denial of membership.
This ruling was delivered by a bench consisting of Justice S Vaidyanathan and Justice K Rajasekar, who were considering an appeal filed by the Madras Bar Association against the earlier judgment of a single judge.
The single judge had expressed strong disapproval of the association’s bylaws, stating that these bylaws created a situation where ordinary advocates found it challenging to become members, leading to class discrimination.
Additionally, the judge had noted that since the association operated within the premises of the court and enjoyed certain benefits, including free electricity, such elitism should not be tolerated in a public place funded by taxpayers.
However, the division bench took a different view, emphasizing that the association was an independent body with its own bylaws. Any complaints about arbitrary denial of membership should be addressed through the appropriate channels. The bench underlined that denial of membership did not automatically equate to discrimination.
Furthermore, the High Court could not assume control over the association’s affairs solely because it operated within the High Court premises.
The court clarified that it did not intend to interfere in the membership process of the association, as long as there was no violation of the bylaws. If any violation occurred, it should be pursued through the appropriate legal procedures, and the court could consider the matter only after establishing the maintainability of the writ petition.
In terms of the petition’s maintainability, the division bench noted that since the original plea effectively sought relief from the Registrar General, it should have been heard by a division bench. Thus, the petition was not maintainable in its original form.
Regarding the potential relocation of the Madras Bar Association from the high-security zone of the Madras High Court, the court stated that this was an administrative decision. The court held that any restrictions on the association’s occupation could only be imposed through an administrative decision, and judicial intervention would only be warranted if there were violations of legal provisions.
The court also criticized lawyers who identified themselves with specific communities, stating that it diminished their status rather than promoting equality.
The court remarked that lawyers, as a collective, formed a separate, homogenous group known as “Gentlemen.” Categorizing themselves by caste only served to create a casteist atmosphere, which the court strongly disapproved of.
Case Title: The Secretary v Elephant G Rajendran and others