High Court Directs Madras Bar Association To Pay Rs. 5 Lakhs As Compensation Over Denial Of Drinking Water To A Junior Advocate
A Madras High Court Bench of Justice SM Subramaniam has directed the Madras Bar Association to pay a sum of Rs. 5,00,000 to a Senior Advocate as compensation for an untoward incident that happened in the Bar Association in 2012, while stressing that the Bar Association is vicariously liable for the conduct for its members.
Further, the Court has observed that "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 tax payer'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. Therefore, creating a separate class of Lawyers at the cost of public by utilising public premises, at no circumstances, be allowed and a Lawyer once entering into the High Court premises must have access to an Association of his choice to become a member or to utilise the infrastructural facilities provided at the cost of the public in public buildings."
Senior Counsel Elephant G Rajendran was the petitioner, and he appeared as party-in-person. Senior Counsel VR Kamalanathan, among others, appeared for the respondent side.
In this case, a writ petition was filed under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution, for the issuance of a writ of mandamus. The petitioner stated that his son was practising as an Advocate as a Junior in his office at the Madras High Court, where an unfortunate incident had occurred inside the Bar Association premises.
The petitioner's son had been feeling sick and weak and had rushed into the Bar Association room to drink water. While he was filling the water tumbler, a Senior Advocate approached him, forcefully snatched the tumbler from his hand and shouted, "You do not drink water here go out".
The petitioner lost his son in a road accident during the pendency of the case, and the Senior Advocate is also no more.
The Court was of the considered view that death of persons cannot put an end to serious social issues, directly relating to the affairs in the Justice Delivery System. In similar context, the Court observed that "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."
Further, the Court stressed that moulding of the relief is an integral part under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution, and hence, the High Court is bound to go to any extent to prevent discrimination or unconstitutionality.
The Court also reiterated that discrimination based on caste and community is unconstitutional. In that context, it was said that "Discrimination based on economic status of the Lawyers are also unconstitutional and in violation of the principles of social justice. Lawyers belong to Homogeneous Class. They create a class by themselves. Thus forming any class within the class of Lawyers is undoubtedly unconstitutional. When the Bar Associations enjoy privileges at the public cost and utilising the public infrastructural facilities, free electricity etc., a practicing Lawyer in the High Court premises cannot be deprived of his right of membership in any Association of his choice."
Subsequently, the Court directed that the Madras Bar Association must compensate the petitioner, and also 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 based on caste, gender, religion, economic status, personal affiliations.
Cause Title: Elephant G Rajendran vs The Registrar General
