Class discrimination: High court orders Madras Bar Association to pay compensation to lawyer

By Christopher Miltus
CHENNAI: The Madras Bar Association, which is one of the country’s oldest Bar associations, has been criticised by the Madras high court for “practising class discrimination, creating an elite group among lawyers and monopolising the association.’
“Going beyond the specific caste-based practice, untouchability includes all practices of social ostracism and exclusion that have their bases in ritual ideas of purity/pollution and hierarchy/subordination,” Justice S M Subramaniam has said.
The court directed the association to pay Rs 5 lakh as compensation to the father of a young lawyer who was allegedly prevented from drinking water from a dispenser installed in the association located on the HC premises.
The court passed the order while disposing of a decade old petition moved by advocate Elephant G Rajendran, father of the lawyer who was denied drinking water by a late senior member of the association.
Pointing out the stringent eligibility conditions imposed by the MBA to become its member, Justice Subramaniam said, “(After a) cursory reading of the stringent conditions prescribed for membership, this court has no hesitation in forming a clear opinion that admissions are strictly restricted, and it would be very difficult for an ordinary lawyer to get a membership of the MBA.”
“Therefore, doubt arises whether it is intended only to create an elite society of lawyers,” the judge added.
As to the allegation of ‘untouchability’ being followed by the MBA, the court said, “The allegation cannot be considered in the perspective of caste discrimination. It is to be construed in the perspective of class discrimination, which is also to be construed as untouchability…”
Pointing out that the association is functioning from a space allotted in the heritage building of the high court, the court said associations functioning from such spaces could not be allowed to restrain lawyers from utilising such public facilities and to have monopoly.
The court then directed the association to provide membership to all interested lawyers without any discrimination and without reference to its ‘draconian’ bylaws.