Madras High Court Stays Single Bench’s Judgment On Madras Bar Association’s Eligibility Criteria For Membership

The Madras High Court has stayed the operation of an order directing the Madras Bar Association to distribute membership applications to all interested lawyers practicing in the High Court and admit them without any discrimination "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 Madras Bar Association or by amending the Bye-Laws suitably."

The single judge had 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 single judge had 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. The court had 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.

When an appeal preferred by the Association against the order of the single-judge came up for admission, the division bench of Justice SS Sundar and Justice K Rajasekar said the single judge ought to have referred the matter to a division bench as all the matters in which the Registrar General is made a party are to be heard by a division bench as per the Madras High Court Writ Rules 2021.

The single judge had passed the orders on a plea 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 P.H Pandian. Rajendran had contended before the single judge that since the Association was functioning using public money, the facilities provided could not be denied to other practicing lawyers. He had alleged that the actions of the Association were discriminatory and deprived lawyers from utilizing public facilities.

The division bench noted that the single judge had failed to consider that the senior lawyer, against whom specific allegations were raised was not made a party to the proceedings and even though the senior advocate was no more, the court had gone ahead and passed a slew of directions.

Case No: WA 1354 of 2023