E-Paper
High court fines Madras bar association over bias in 2012 discrimination case
Madras High Court fines Madras Bar Association for discrimination against a junior lawyer who was denied drinking water by a senior lawyer in 2012. The court ordered compensation to be paid to the petitioner's father, who filed the case on behalf of his son, and directed the bar association to distribute membership applications to all interested practising lawyers without discrimination. The court also observed that social issues must be addressed and redressed for the future of the justice delivery system.
Chennai: The Madras high court has fined the Madras bar association (MBA) in a 2012 case after a senior lawyer had denied providing drinking water to a junior lawyer in the association, raising the larger issue of discrimination at the judicial institution and the justice delivery system.
The bar association has denied the incident, however, in the counter affidavit they say that members of the association pay for the drinking water. Water charges are collected along with the annual membership fee.
Though both lawyers (junior lawyer and the senior lawyer) have passed away over the years, justice S M Subramanian who was hearing the case observed that, “Social issues or social evils ‘never die with the persons’ and such issues are to be addressed and redressed in the interest of our future nation.
The court ordered the Madras bar association to pay a compensation to senior advocate and petitioner in the case, Elephant G Rajendran, who filed the petition on behalf of his son and junior lawyer R Neil Rashan. The petitioner’s son was not allowed to drink water by senior advocate, P H Pandian. Rashan died in a road accident. Pandian passed away in 2020.
The bar association had urged the court to close the case considering the deaths of the lawyers and a lapse of 11 years. The association also said that it has now kept two water cans at the entrance of the Madras bar association for practising lawyers and other people visiting the court premises.
But the court was of the opinion that merely closing the writ petition cannot be a way out and the issues raised between the parties should be addressed in the interest of the judiciary.
“Courts are not expected to leave such issues casually by holding it unnecessary, as it will affect the future lawyers, who all are backbone for the developments of our justice delivery system,” justice Subramanian said. “Judges are duty bound to ensure that no discrimination in any form is practised and (an) impartial system prevail for creating trust and comfort in the mind of the lawyers and litigants in the process of justice delivery system.”
On the petitioner’s submission regarding the admission of members, preventing practising lawyers of the Madras high court from entering into the MBA’s premises for drinking water, using restroom, on exclusive car parking provided for bar members, the court said that the “said facts are not denied” by MBA and “it is a fact, known to the high court administration and the lawyers practising in the high court premises.”
The court also directed the bar association to distribute applications for membership to all the interested practising lawyers in the Madras high court and admit them without discriminating against any lawyer on the basis of caste, gender, religion, economic status, personal affiliations with senior advocates, and political affiliations. “In the event of failure on the part of the second respondent (MBA), the Madras high court administration and the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu are bound to initiate all appropriate actions in the manner known to law,” the court said. “The lawyers being homogeneous clause, further creating divisions on any criteria including economic status or otherwise will result in losing faith and ordinary lawyers will get frustrated and there is a possibility of young and talented lawyers leaving the profession.”
The court had reserved the orders in this case on June 6 and pronounced them on June 22. The incident had occurred in January 2012. The petitioner’s son Rashan, who had filed a supporting affidavit earlier, had narrated that one fine day, at around 11.30 am he was near Madras bar association room. Since he was feeling sick and weak, he demanded to drink water. “When I was filling water in a tumbler, Senior Advocate Mr P H Pandian came to me and forcefully snatched the tumbler from my hand shouting “You do not drink water here go out”,” he had said. “I was shocked and left the MBA with a broken heart and tears.” His father, a senior advocate, filed a petition on the same day in 2012. The court has directed the bar association to pay ₹5 lakh as a compensation to the senior advocate.
