Allegation Of Caste Discrimination In Madras Bar Association Far-Fetched; Discrimination Doesn’t Flow From Membership Denial : Madras High Court

The bench of Justice S Vaidyanathan and Justice K Rajasekar made the observations while hearing an appeal preferred by the Madras Bar Association against the order of a single judge.

The single judge had heavily criticized the bylaws of the association and observed that the bylaws were formulated in such a manner that ordinary Advocates found it difficult to get membership thus resulting in class discrimination. The 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.

Discrimination did not flow from denial of membership

The division bench, on the other hand, noted that the association was an autonomous body with its own bylaws and if there was any grievance with respect to arbitrary denial of membership, it ought to have been questioned before the appropriate forum. Observing that discrimination did not flow from denial of membership, the division bench also noted that the High Court could not be expected to control the affairs of the Association merely because it was occupying a place inside the High Court.

"Discrimination does not flow from denial of membership. Merely because Madras Bar Association is permitted to occupy a place inside the Madras High Court, it does not mean that the affairs of the Association can be controlled by the High Court, including grant or denial of membership, as it is an autonomous body and it has its own by-laws and any contravention in the application of by-laws has to be agitated in accordance with law," the court said.

The court thus made it clear that it did not want to intervene in the membership process of the association as long as there was no violation of the bye-laws and even if there was any violation it would have to be taken up before the appropriate forum and the court could consider the same only after deciding the maintainability of the writ petition.

With respect to the maintainability of the original petition in the present case, the division bench had also observed that since the original plea effectively sought for relief from the Registrar General, it could have been heard only by a division bench and thus, the plea should not have been maintainable. 

With respect to shifting the Madras Bar Association from the High-Security zone of the Madras High Court, the bench said that the court could not take a call on that aspect since it was an administrative decision and once the Association is granted permission to occupy by an administrative decision, placing of any fetters on such occupation can only be by means of an administrative decision and there could be no judicial intervention so long as violation of legal provisions.

The court also observed that if lawyers categorized themselves as belonging to a particular community, it only degraded their status rather than posing themselves as equal to everyone.

"As already stated, Lawyers form a separate community. If they categorize themselves as belonging to Forward/ Backward/ Scheduled Caste/ Scheduled Tribe community, it only amounts to degrading their status rather than posing themselves that they are equal to everyone. Lawyers, as a whole, belong to a separate homogenous group called 'Gentlemen'. However, it is unfortunate that the said homogeneous community is trying to use this Court to create a casteist atmosphere which is highly deprecated," the court observed.

Counsel for the Appellant: Mr.G.Masilamani Senior Counsel and Mr.V.Prakash, Senior Counsel, Mr.E.Om Prakash, Senior Counsel for Mr.P.Srinivas, Mr.P.S.Raman, Senior Counsel for Mr.K.Gowthamkumar

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr.Elephant G. Rajendran, Mr.Karthik Ranganathan Standing Counsel, Mr.R.Sankarasubbu for Mr.A.Mohandoss, Mr.S.Mahaveer Shivaji

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 340

Case Title: The Secretary v Elephant G Rajendran and others

Case No: WA 1354 of 2023