Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J.
Elephant G. Rajendran – Appellant
Versus
The Registrar-General, High Court of Madras, Chennai & Others – Respondents
WP No. 22460 of 2012 & MP No. 2 of 2012 & WMP Nos. 16543 & 16547 of 2023
Decided On : 22-06-2023
The writ petition was filed by a Senior Advocate challenging the refusal of the Madras Bar Association to consider and pass an order on his petition dated 13.07.2012 including taking suitable action against the learned Senior Counsel, Mr.P.H.Pandian, for allegedly snatching a tumbler from the deceased son of the petitioner and forcefully asking him to leave the water filter kept in the Hall of the MBA. The petitioner also raised several other issues relating to the functioning of the Madras Bar Association, including the denial of membership to deserving Advocates, preventing practising Lawyers from entering into the premises even for drinking water and to utilise the rest room etc., and also exclusive car parking provided to the Members of the Madras Bar Association in the High Court premises etc.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Senior Advocate practising law for the past about 44 years continuously, filed the present writ petition in his capacity not only as father, but also on behalf of the Junior Advocate, who is the victim of the incident which occurred inside the premises of the Madras Bar Association. The petitioner has stated that his son Mr.R.Neil Roshan was a practising Advocate in the High Court of Madras and was a Junior in the office of the petitioner. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition in his capacity not only as father, but also on behalf of the Junior Advocate, who is the victim of the incident which occurred inside the premises of the Madras Bar Association. Unfortunately during the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner lost his son in a road accident. The petitioner-in-person, at the first instance, submitted that he has taken sincere and continuous efforts to list the writ petition for final hearing and now after a lapse of 11 years, he could bring the matter and therefore, this Court may hear and dispose of the writ petition. The petitioner is a Senior Advocate practising law for the past about 44 years continuously. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition in his capacity not only as father, but also on behalf of the Junior Advocate, who is the victim of the incident which occurred inside the premises of the Madras Bar Association. Unfortunately during the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner lost his son in a road accident.
Finding of the Court:
The writ petition was filed by a Senior Advocate challenging the refusal of the Madras Bar Association to consider and pass an order on his petition dated 13.07.2012 including taking suitable action against the learned Senior Counsel, Mr.P.H.Pandian, for allegedly snatching a tumbler from the deceased son of the petitioner and forcefully asking him to leave the water filter kept in the Hall of the MBA. The petitioner also raised several other issues relating to the functioning of the Madras Bar Association, including the denial of membership to deserving Advocates, preventing practising Lawyers from entering into the premises even for drinking water and to utilise the rest room etc., and also exclusive car parking provided to the Members of the Madras Bar Association in the High Court premises etc.
Issues: 1. Whether the Madras Bar Association was justified in refusing to consider and pass an order on the petitioner's petition dated 13.07.2012 including taking suitable action against the learned Senior Counsel, Mr.P.H.Pandian, for allegedly snatching a tumbler from the deceased son of the petitioner and forcefully asking him to leave the water filter kept in the Hall of the MBA? 2. Whether the Madras Bar Association is justified in denying membership to deserving Advocates, preventing practising Lawyers from entering into the premises even for drinking water and to utilise the rest room etc., and also providing exclusive car parking to the Members of the Madras Bar Association in the High Court premises?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Madras Bar Association was not justified in refusing to consider and pass an order on the petitioner's petition dated 13.07.2012 including taking suitable action against the learned Senior Counsel, Mr.P.H.Pandian, for allegedly snatching a tumbler from the deceased son of the petitioner and forcefully asking him to leave the water filter kept in the Hall of the MBA. 2. The Madras Bar Association is not justified in denying membership to deserving Advocates, preventing practising Lawyers from entering into the premises even for drinking water and to utilise the rest room etc., and also providing exclusive car parking to the Members of the Madras Bar Association in the High Court premises.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed. The Madras Bar Association was directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- to the petitioner towards compensation for the untoward incident happened in the Madras Bar Association premises on 06.01.2012. The Madras Bar Association was also directed to admit the respondents 3 and 4 as members of the Madras Bar Association within a period of one (1) week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Madras Bar Association was further directed to 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 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 Bar Associations functioning in the High Court premises were directed to obtain prior permission from the Registrar General, Madras High Court for conducting / holding celebrations, functions, birthday parties, lunch parties etc., in the interest of safety and security in the High Court Premises. Shifting of Madras Bar Association / second respondent from “High Security Zone” to any other place in the High Court premises was within the exclusive domain of the High Court administration.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent to consider and pass order on the petitioner''s petition dated 13.07.2012 including taking suitable action.)
The lis on hand has been instituted on account of an unfortunate incident occurred in the premises of the second respondent-Madras Bar Association inside the High Court Buildings. The writ petition was instituted in the year 2012. The petitioner is a Senior Advocate practising law for the past about 44 years continuously. The petitioner-in-person, at the first instance, submitted that he has taken sincere and continuous efforts to list the writ petition for final hearing and now after a lapse of 11 years, he could bring the matter and therefore, this Court may hear and dispose of the writ petition.
2. The writ petition was heard initially on 26.04.2023 and thereafter, on 12.06.2023 and finally it was heard on 16.06.2023 and all the parties to the lis have made their respective submissions.
3. The issues raised between the parties are directly relating to the Judicial Institution and the Justice Delivery System. Thus, this Court thought fit to consider the related issues carefully in the interest of the Judicial Institution, Justice Delivery System and in the interest of public. This Court thought fit that the relief sought for by the petitioner is to be considered in the perspective of the issues raised and if necessary by moulding the relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
PETITIONER''S CASE:
4. The petitioner states that his son Mr.R.Neil Rashan was a practising Advocate in the High Court of Madras and was a Junior in the office of the petitioner. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition in his capacity not only as father, but also on behalf of the Junior Advocate, who is the victim of the incident which occurred inside the Bar Association premises. Unfortunately during the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner lost his son in a road accident.
5. The learned Senior Advocate, Mr.P.H.Pandian, against whom the serious allegations are raised by the petitioner, is also no more. In this context, at the first instance, the learned President of the second respondent-Bar Association made a submission that the writ petition is to be closed, since the victim and the learned Senior Advocate, connected with the unfortunate incident, which is regrettable, are no more. However, this Court formed an opinion that social issues never die with the persons. Death of persons cannot put an end to serious social issues raised in the present writ petition directly relating to the affairs in the Justice Delivery System. Merely closing the writ petition cannot be a way out, but the issues raised between the parties are to be addressed in the interest of the judiciary.
6. The unfortunate incident occurred inside the premises of the Madras Bar Association has been narrated by the deceased victim Mr.R.Neil Roshan in his supporting affidavit filed along with the present writ petition as under:
“2. I submit I am practising in this Hon''ble High Court since 2006. I have completed MBA and after passing MBA I joined L.L.B. and enrolled myself in July 2006 with Bar Council of Tamil Nadu. I am doing my profession under Elephant G.Rajendran as Junior.
3. On 06.01.2012 around 11:30 AM I was near Madras Bar Association room. Being sick and feeling weak I felt an urge to drink water. So I rushed to the water filter kept in the Hall of the MBA. When I was filling water in tumbler, Senior Advocate Mr.P.H.Pandian came to me and forcefully snatched tumbler from my hand shouting “You do not drink water here go out”. I shocked and left the MBA with broken heart and tears.
4. About this incident my father Elephant G.Rajendran filed complaint against Mr.P.H.Pandian on the same day. I here by submit that what are all steps taken by Mr.Elepha
Bar Associations are integral part of Justice Delivery System and performing the functions of public nature, Bar Association itself is a public functionary. Therefore, the High Court Administration i....
Writ petitions against the Registrar General must be heard by a Division Bench, and relief cannot be granted without proper jurisdiction and due process.
The Court mandates the principles of 'one advocate one vote' and 'one advocate one chamber' for Bar Associations in Delhi to ensure representative elections and proper chamber allocation among practi....
The right to vote in Bar Association elections is governed by membership rules, not as a fundamental right, and non-compliance with enrolment requirements invalidates such rights.
The right to practice law is a fundamental right protected by the Constitution, and Bar Associations cannot impose restrictions that infringe upon this right.
The impugned rule restricting enrolment of advocates engaging in other professions is a reasonable restriction under the Advocates Act and Articles 19(1)(g), 14, and 21 of the Constitution, ensuring ....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
