2012 case against discrimination: Madras HC fines bar association over denial of water to lawyer

Observing that “social evils never die with the persons”, the High Court ordered MBA to pay the compensation amount to senior advocate Elephant G Rajendran, whose son Rashan was prevented from drinking water at the MBA’s office by Pandian.

Advocate Rajendran said his son, who was practising under him at the Madras HC, died in a road accident sometime ago. Pandian, who was accused of discriminating against Rashan, is also no more. The court said though both the complainant and accused in the case have died, “such issues are to be addressed and redressed in the interest of our future nation”.

Rashan had said in his complaint: “I was near the 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 a tumbler, senior advocate P H Pandian came to me and forcefully snatched the tumbler from my hand shouting, ‘You do not drink water here, go out.’ I was shocked and left the MBA with a broken heart and tears.”

The HC order said courts are not expected to leave such issues casually, as it will affect the future lawyers who are the backbone of our justice delivery system. “We cannot leave a bad precedent for future generation lawyers. Judges are duty-bound to ensure that no discrimination in any form is practised and an impartial system prevails for creating trust and comfort in the mind of the lawyers and litigants in the process of justice delivery system,” said Justice S M Subramaniam while delivering the order.

“The High Court has got ample powers to control functions and affairs of the bar associations within the court premises,” the order said, adding that “the right to access cannot be denied to any lawyer in the court premises unless it is restricted by the High Court in the interest of judicial administration”.

“In all other places, access to lawyers, who all are officers of the court, under no circumstances be denied nor they be restrained from utilising public facilities provided within the High Court premises. Exclusive usage of public premises, in no circumstances, be encouraged by the High Court administration only for a few lawyers who belong to a particular association. If at all they prefer to enjoy an exclusive right, then they are at liberty to do so outside the public premises,” the order said.

“This case requires the court to ask whether a particular practice, like untouchability, is a practice of social subordination, exclusion, and segregation, based upon an idea that certain personal characteristics can justify relegating individuals to an inferior position in society,” the court added.