Background Matrix 

In the case of The Secretary v. Elephant G Rajendran The Madras Bar Association was ordered by a single judge bench led by Justice S.M. Subramaniam, to pay the Senior Advocate Rs. 5 lakhs in compensation after the Senior Advocate’s son, a junior attorney, filed a writ petition in 2012 alleging that he was denied access to water inside the High Court-located Madras Bar Association’s premises and that the organisation had placed unjustified restrictions on the admission of practising attorneys. As a result, this order is the subject of the current appeal.

Analysis of court order 

The Madras Bar Association was ordered to pay a compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs after an Advocate was denied access to the MBA’s premises to drink water on the grounds that he was not a member of the Madras Bar Association. The order was stayed by the division bench of Justice S.S. Sundar and Justice K. Rajasekar of the Madras High Court

The occurrence on June 1, 2012, the basis for submitting the writ petition was refused by the Single Judge, according to the court’s ruling. The Senior Counsel against whom complaints were made has not been impleading by the respondent Senior Advocate. In order to have the Senior Counsel’s status as Senior Counsel revoked, the Registry need to be ordered to act against him by the writ petition.

The Bench decided that where substantial charges are made against the Senior Counsel, a writ petition cannot be maintained without impleading them. According to the Court, Article 226 of the Indian Constitution prohibits it from making fact-based decisions on contested topics. When the petitioners have separate causes of action, especially when they are not filed as Public Interest Litigation, the scope of a writ petition cannot be increased by permitting impleading petitions. The Court further pointed out that the Single Judge ought to have taken into account the appellant’s particular concerns when they were made hence The Bench decided that only those who have experienced legal damage may submit a writ petition. Since the Single Judge decided the writ petition was a Public Interest Litigation, the Senior Advocate ought to have filed a Public Interest Litigation. The Court determined that there was a strong argument for an interim stay since the order’s ramifications might have an impact on the state’s bar associations’ independence.

CASE NAME – The Secretary v. Elephant G Rajendran, Writ Appeal No. 1354 of 2023