The Madras High Court recently observed that “discrimination based on economic status of lawyers is unconstitutional and in violation of the principles of social justice”. These observations were made by a single-judge bench while dealing with a writ petition over an incident on the premises of the Madras Bar Association (MBA) inside the High Court Buildings in 2012, wherein a junior lawyer was not allowed to drink water from the filter kept in the MBA hall.
The petition was filed by Senior Advocate G. Rajendran, the father of the junior lawyer.
The allegations were levelled against Senior Advocate PH Pandian who had snatched the tumbler from the young lawyer’s hand shouting, “You do not drink water here go out.”
Rajendran, the petitioner had strenuously contended that instead of initiating action against Pandian, the MBA had supported him by stating that no such incident occurred.
“Lawyers belong to Homogeneous Class. They create a class by themselves. Thus forming any class within the class of Lawyers is undoubtedly unconstitutional. When the Bar Associations enjoy privileges at the public cost and utilising the public infrastructural facilities, free electricity etc., a practicing Lawyer in the High Court premises cannot be deprived of his right of membership in any Association of his choice…,” a single judge bench of the High Court observed.
Noting that all lawyers’ associations are provided with some facilities at public cost, Justice SM Subramaniam added, “Therefore, they are performing public duties and responsibilities and they have got further duties towards the Lawyers more particularly. Creating an Elite Community within the Lawyers Group may fall under the Fundamental Right of ‘Right to Association’.”
With the view that right to access cannot be denied to any lawyer on court premises unless it is restricted by the High Court in the interest of judicial administration, the High Court has ordered the Madras Bar Association to pay a sum of Rs 5 lakh to the petitioner towards compensation for the incident, as the association is liable for the conduct of its own members.
“The exclusive usage of public premises at no circumstances be encouraged by the High Court Administration only for few Lawyers, who belong to a particular Association. If at all they prefers to enjoy an exclusive right then they are at liberty to do so outside the public premises and certainly not inside the public premises…,” the order adds.
The High Court has further opined that “within the premises of the public Institution such discriminations are impermissible and would cause not only heart-breaking issues, but violative of fundamental right of the citizen of our Great Nation and creating a separate class of Lawyers at the cost of public by utilising public premises, at no circumstances, be allowed”.
Comments
0 comment