Justice KV Viswanathan Offers To Recuse From Case Against Madras Bar Association, Cites Links With MBA

In a set of cases against the Madras Bar Association ("MBA"), the Supreme Court today (February 23) asked the parties concerned to inform by next date of hearing if they have any objection to Justice KV Viswanathan hearing the matter, in light of the fact that he had attended an event at MBA after his elevation.

The Bench of Justices Surya Kant and KV Viswanathan was dealing with a challenge, inter-alia, to the admission norms of the MBA.

Initially, in 2012, Senior Advocate Elephant Rajendran had filed a plea before the Madras High Court, alleging that his son (a non-member) was prevented from drinking water at the MBA hall by another Senior Advocate. He contended that since the MBA was functioning upon public money, the facilities provided could not be denied to other practicing lawyers. The petitioner alleged that there are various instances of discrimination where the Association had, arbitrarily and in a discriminatory manner, not considered the membership application of different persons.

MBA, on the other hand, denied all allegations and submitted that the alleged incident was incorrect. It further urged that the matter may be closed, since both the petitioner's son and the senior counsel alleged to have denied access to drinking water had passed away during the pendency of the case.

Opining that social issues raised in the matter did not die with the petitioner's son and the concerned senior counsel, a Single Judge of the High Court proceeded with the case. He noted that the Association was functioning inside Court premises (a public place) and enjoying all benefits such as free electricity. As such, "elitism" and discrimination could not be allowed to continue. He further came to a conclusion that the MBA bye-laws were formulated in a manner that made it difficult for ordinary Advocates to get membership.

In this backdrop, a slew of directions were issued in June, 2023, including that the Association shall pay a sum of Rs.5 lacs as compensation to petitioner-Rajendran. The Judge also directed the Association to admit two Advocates viz. Mohandoss and Mahaveer Shivaji, whose applications for membership had been pending for a long time.

In an appeal preferred by MBA, a Division Bench of the High Court set aside the Single Judge's order in November, saying that the matter ought to have referred by the Judge to a Division Bench, as all matters in which the Registrar General is party are to be heard by a Division Bench as per the Madras High Court Writ Rules 2021.

The Division Bench also observed that the Single Judge failed to consider that the Senior Advocate, against whom specific allegations were raised, was not made a party to the proceedings. Even though he was no more, the Judge went ahead and passed directions, the Division Bench lamented.

With regard to admission of Advocates into the Association, the Division Bench observed that membership of an individual could be decided only by the Association and not all persons could make a grievance. It did not find favor with Advocate Mohandass' claims, considering that he had not moved a separate petition or appealed against rejection of his application before the appropriate forum.

Against the Division Bench's order, petitioner-Rajendran and Advocate Mohandoss approached the Supreme Court. Today, during the hearing, Viswanathan, J could be heard saying, "if you have any objection, let me know...after my appointment, there was a function there where I had attended...in case you have any reservation, you kindly let us know because it is my duty to disclose it...".

Rajendran's counsel replied, "I have no problem, unless your Lordship has reservations".

At this point, Justice Kant added, "Bar Association had invited His Lordship on elevation because originally he belonged to that Bar...There can't be any [...]".

Another counsel appeared for Dr. Muralidhar, stated to be representing another petitioner (Mohandoss), and sought a pass-over. However, the Court adjourned the matter to next week, intending to ascertain all petitioners' stance on the recusal aspect.

"Meanwhile you find out", said Justice Kant, parting with the matter. Rajendran's counsel again clarified, "As far as I am concerned, we have no objection".

The Bench said that it would be better if all petitioners' stance on the aspect was heard.

Case Title: ELEPHANT G. RAJENDRAN Versus REGISTRAR GENERAL HIGH COURT OF MADRAS AND ORS., SLP(C) No. 3932/2024 (and connected cases)