Questioning whether the Madras Bar Association (MBA), founded in 1865, was intended for an “elite society of lawyers,” the Madras High Court on Thursday directed the association to distribute applications for membership to all interested practising lawyers in the High Court, and admit them as members without discriminating on the basis of caste, gender, religion, economic status and personal as well as political affiliations.
Justice S.M. Subramaniam also directed the MBA to pay ₹5 lakh to advocate ‘Elephant’ G. Rajendran whose son R. Neil Rashan, a lawyer and a non-member, was reportedly admonished by a senior member of the MBA in 2012 for attempting to drink water from a filter at the association hall. The orders were passed while disposing of a writ petition filed by Mr. Rajendran in 2012, accusing the MBA of having fortified a public space.
Further, on being told that the MBA was the only bar association to enjoy the privilege of functioning within the high security zone of the High Court, the judge said it was for the Registrar General to take a call on shifting the association from the high security zone under Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) cover to a building outside the zone, after placing all facts before Chief Justice S.V. Gangapurwala.
The judge made it clear that all Bar associations functioning on the High Court premises must obtain a prior permission from the Registrar General for conducting celebrations, functions, birthday parties and lunch parties among others. When two lawyers — A. Mohandoss and Mahaveer Shivaji — got impleaded in the 2012 writ petition and complained that their membership applications were pending for years together, the judge directed MBA to admit them within a week.
After finding that the onerous bylaws of the association made it very difficult for an ordinary lawyer to become a member, the judge directed the MBA to, henceforth, offer membership to all interested advocates either by amending [the bylaws] or without reference to them.
The judge passed the orders despite being told that the writ petitioner’s son and the senior member who was accused of admonishing him had died. “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.” the judge said.
He went on to hear the petitioner who argued the case, the MBA and the Registrar General before passing the orders.
