0

Madras High Court Rules Writ Petition Infructuous After Elephant Relocated to Kalakad Mundanthurai Tiger Reserve.

blog, Blog , , , ,

Case Title: Rabecca Joseph …Petitioner

                                            Vs.

              Principal Chief Conservator of Forests and Anrs   …Respondents

Date of Decision: 16.06.2023

Coram: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR AND

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D. BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY 

Citation: W.P.(MD)No.13060 of 2023 and

W.M.P.(MD)Nos.11057, 11060, 11061 & 11063 of 2023

Introduction

For the foregoing reasons, the petitioner prays that the writ petition be allowed and a writ of mandamus be issued directing the 1st respondent to modify the site to which Arikomban be translocated mentioned in his order issued vide Proc.No.WL1/14072/2023 dated 27.05.2023 to the Tamil Nadu Forests bordering the Mathikettan Shola National Park in Kerala, a place where the elephant knows since his usual movement pattern and life revolved around Chinnakanal, Anayirangal Dam and Mathikettan Shola National Park in Kerala rather than being taken further away in unknown territory which is the known path of Arikomban.

Facts

The petitioner an animal rights activist is concerned about the welfare of a wild elephant named Arikomban, who was recently moved from the Mathikettan Shola National Park in Kerala to the Anayirangal Dam in Tamil Nadu. The activist argues that the move was not in Arikomban’s best interests, as the Anayirangal Dam is a relatively small area with limited food and water resources. Additionally, the area is frequented by humans, which increases the risk of Arikomban being injured or killed. The activist also argues that the move was unnecessary, as Arikomban has been living in the Mathikettan Shola National Park for many years and has shown no signs of aggression towards humans. The petitioner also sought for a relief to modify the circular issued by the Chief Conservator of Forests.

Issues

Was the translocation of Arikomban legal?

Were the Arikomban’s the best interests kept in mind while translocating?

Was the decision-making process transparent and inclusive?

What are the potential implications of the translocation of Arikomban for the future of elephant translocation in India?

Case analysis

The petitioner argues that the translocation of Arikomban to the Anayirangal Dam was illegal, as it violated his right to life and liberty. They also argue that the translocation was unnecessary, as Arikomban had not shown any signs of aggression towards humans.

The petitioner argues that the best interests of Arikomban would be served by being relocated to the Tamil Nadu Forests bordering the Mathikettan Shola National Park in Kerala. This is a place where he knows and is familiar with, and where there is more food and water available. The petitioner is concerned about the lack of transparency and public consultation in the decision-making process leading to the translocation of Arikomban. The petitioner is concerned that the translocation of Arikomban could set a precedent for the future of elephant translocation in India.

The petitioner sought for a relief to modify the circular issued by the Chief Conservator of Forests. The circular stated that the media was prohibited from publishing information about Arikomban without the prior permission of the Forest Department. The petitioner argued that the circular was too restrictive and that it prevented the public from being informed about Arikomban’s welfare.

The court has reviewed a status report filed by the Chief Conservator of Forests (respondent). The report states that the elephant, Arikomban, has been relocated to the Kalakad Mundanthurai Tiger Reserve and is now adapting to the climate there. As a result, the question of releasing Arikomban in the Mathikettan Shola National Park is no longer relevant. The Forest Department has taken steps to monitor Arikomban’s movement and ensure his safety.

Judgement

The court has ruled that the writ petition is no longer necessary because Arikomban has been relocated to a new location and is now adapting to the climate there. The court has also stated that the petitioner can file a new writ petition if they wish to seek relief regarding the publication of information about Arikomban in the media.

Conclusion

The case has been concluded with the court ruling that the writ petition is no longer necessary. The elephant, Arikomban, has been relocated to the Kalakad Mundanthurai Tiger Reserve and is now adapting to the climate there. The question of releasing Arikomban in the Mathikettan Shola National Park does not arise at all. The Forest Department has taken steps to monitor Arikomban’s movement and ensure his safety.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won Mathikettan Shola National Parka National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

 JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY JANGAM SHASHIDHAR.

Click here to view Judgement

0

Govt agencies should pay their contractors on time Says Madras High Court.

Blog, blog , ,

Case Title:              Mr. M. Prakash          …. Petitioner

                                                .Vs.

                    The State of Tamil Nadu and Anrs     …. Respondents

Date of Decision: 20.06.2023

Coram: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH

Citation: W.P.No.14931 of 2023

Introduction

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1st to 4th respondents to settle the bill amounts of the petitioner meant for the periods from 09.10.2019 to 21.01.2022 to the tune of Rs.1,47,13,958.10/-

The petitioner is seeking a writ of mandamus from the court directing the Board to settle the bills. The Board has not yet settled the bills.  A writ of mandamus is a court order that requires a public official to perform a legal duty. In this case, the petitioner is asking the court to order the Board to settle the bills that are due to him.

Facts

Mr. M. Prakash is a contractor who has worked for the Chennai Metro-Water and Sewerage Board since 2019. He has submitted bills for the work he has done for the Board in the period from 09.10.2019 to 21.01.2022, totaling Rs. 1,47,13,958.10/-. The Board has not yet settled the bills, even though Mr. Prakash has made a representation to the Board asking for settlement. The Board has acknowledged the representation, but has not yet settled the bills.

Mr. Prakash has filed a writ petition in the Madras High Court seeking a writ of mandamus, directing the Chennai Metro-Water and Sewerage Board (CMWSSB) to pay the amount that is due and payable against the various works done by him.

Issues

Whether the CMWSSB has a legal duty to settle the bills that are due to Mr. Prakash?

Whether the CMWSSB has given any reason for not settling the bills?

Case analysis

The area engineer of the CMWSSB has submitted a report. The report shows that the petitioner has already been paid Rs.1,03,37,377/- for the work they have done. The department is in process of verifying the relevant records for the pending bills. Once the claim made by the petitioner is ascertained, the amounts will be settled to them. The CMWSSB has a legal obligation to pay Mr. Prakash for the work he has done. The CMWSSB has acknowledged that Mr. Prakash is entitled to be paid, by accepting his bills. The CMWSSB has not given any reason for not paying Mr. Prakash.

Judgement

The Madras High Court has issued a writ of mandamus directing the CMWSSB to pay the amount that is due and payable to Mr. M. Prakash. The court found that the CMWSSB had a legal duty to settle the bills that were due to Mr. Prakash, and that Mr. Prakash was suffering financial hardship because the CMWSSB had not settled the bills. In response to the stance taken by the CMWSSB, the court stated there will be an instruction given to the respondent parties involved to address the petitioner’s claim. Any undisputed amounts will be settled in favor of the petitioner. However, for disputed amounts, they will need to be resolved through the appropriate legal channels. In any case, the respondent parties are required to complete this process within twelve weeks from the receipt of this order. Consequently, this writ petition is concluded according to the terms mentioned above.

Conclusion

The court’s decision is a win for Mr. Prakash, and it reminds government agencies that they have a legal obligation to pay their contractors on time. The decision also shows that the Madras High Court is willing to take action to protect the rights of contractors.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

 JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY JANGAM SHASHIDHAR.

Click here to view Judgement

0

Caste will have no role in appointment of temple priests, rules Madras High Court.

blog, Blog , , , ,

Case Title: Muthu Subramania Gurukkal   … Petitioner 
                            

                                Versus

The Commissioner,Hindu Religious and CharitableEndowment Department and  Anrs                                                              … Respondents

Date of Decision:   Reserved on :21.6.2023
                               Delivered on :26.6.2023 

Coram: The Honourable Mr.Justice N.ANAND VENKATESH 

Citation: WPNo.3997 of 2018 & WMP.Nos.4916 and 4948 of 2018 & 12136 of 2022.

Introduction:

Caste will have no role to play in the appointment of priests in temples, ruled Madras High Court on Monday. The HC also allowed trustees to appoint any person well-versed and qualified to perform the ‘pooja’ as per the requirement of temple rituals. The court gave the order while hearing a plea by Muthu Subramania Gurukkal against an advertisement issued by the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment (HR&CE) department. The advertisement called for applications for the positions of Archakas/Sthanikam of Sri Sugavaneswarar Swamy Temple in Salem.

Facts:
The petitioner hails from the family of Sivachariyars and their family has been performing the poojas from time immemorial and the position of Sthanikam was occupied as a hereditary right. Accordingly, after his grandfather, the petitioner took over the position as Sthanikam and was performing the poojas. The customs and usages were the basis for occupying the
position as Sthanikam and every time when there is a change in the Sthanikam, a letter of intimation used to be give to the Authorities, who also granted approval subsequently.

The grievance of the petitioner is that respondents 2 and 3, all of a sudden, issued the impugned advertisement calling for applications for appointment to the position of Archakas/Sthanikam of the subject temple and that the impugned advertisement infringes
upon the hereditary right of the petitioner and others, who are rendering their services as per the customs and usage in the line of succession from time immemorial. Accordingly, the impugned advertisement has been put to challenge in the above writ petition.

Issues:

  • Whether the appointment of a priest is by itself a secular function or a religious practice?
  • Whether appointment of an archaka is governed by the usage and hereditary succession is a religious usage?

Legal Analysis:

The Madras High Court on Monday made it clear that caste has no role to play in the appointment of archakas (temple priests) to temples in Tamil Nadu. The only qualification for being appointed as an archaka is being well-versed in the Agama principles applicable to the concerned temple, and the person selected has the required knowledge and is properly trained and qualified to perform pujas. 

“It is made abundantly clear that the pedigree based on caste will have no role to play in the appointment of Archaka if the person so selected otherwise satisfies the requirements,” Justice N. Anand Venkatesh ruled on Monday disposing a writ petition. The petition was filed by Muthu Subramania Gurukal in 2018 challenging a notification issued by the Executive Officer (EO) of Sri Sugavaneswarar Swamy Temple in Salem. He also said the notification infringes upon his hereditary rights to hold the position of ‘Sthanigam’, as he was serving in the temple as per customs and practices in line of succession. The petition also insisted that every priest appointment in temples have to be made according to the Agama principles followed by the temple.

Dismissing the petition challenging the powers of the EOs to appoint the archakas or priests, Justice Anand Venkatesh said, “It is always left open to the trustees to appoint Archakas/Sthanikam in Agamic temples by ensuring the Archakas/Sthanikam are well-versed, properly trained and qualified to perform the pujas as per the requirements under the agama.” The court also instructed the EO to issue a fresh advertisement for appointing the archakas/sthanigam and asked the petitioner to participate in the due selection process. 

Citing a Supreme Court judgement which held “the appointment of a temple priest is a secular function and hence there is no question of claiming a hereditary right. The archaka is expected to be well-versed in gamines and necessary rituals,” Justice Anand Venkatesh observed. He added that any person belonging to any caste or creed can be appointed as an archaka provided he is well-versed in Agama principles. 

The judgment comes two years after the DMK government appointed 24 trained non-brahmin priests to various temples governed by the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment (HR and CE) department in Tamil Nadu. The DMK government, within a month after it took over in May 2021, revived the priest training schools and went ahead appointing archakas belonging to all castes.

Judgement:

Justice N Anand Venkatesh said that the only requirement for one to be appointed as archagars (priests) of temples in Tamil Nadu should be that one is well versed in the Agamic (temple traditions) principles of the concerned temple and that one was adequately trained to perform temple rituals.

The High Court made the observation while disposing of a writ petition filed in 2018. The plea challenged a notification issued by the Executive Officer (EO) of the Sri Sugavaneswarar Swamy Temple in Salem district of Tamil Nadu, calling for applications to fill up the post of Archagar or Sthanigar (temple priests).

The petitioner had insisted that priests should inherit the position. He had told the Court that the notification infringed upon his hereditary rights to hold the position of a priest as he had been serving in the temple as per customs and usages in the line of succession for years.

 The writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the third respondent to issue an advertisement in line with the observations made supra and the Archakas/Sthanikam shall be appointed for Sri Sugavaneswarar Swamy Temple, Salem. The petitioner shall be permitted to perform the poojas till the appointment of the Archakas/Sthanikam. It is also left open to the petitioner to participate in the selection.

Conclusion:

Caste will have no role to play in the appointment of priests in temples, ruled Madras High Court on Monday. The HC also allowed trustees to appoint any person well-versed and qualified to perform the ‘pooja’ as per the requirement of temple rituals. The High Court allowed the petitioner to participate in the selection process but said that persons belonging to any caste can become temple priests.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

 JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY JANGAM SHASHIDHAR

Click here to view Judgement

0

12 saplings to replace every tree cut-down Directs Madras High Court in Egmore Railway Station Expansion.

blog, Blog , , ,

Case Title: Pasumai Thaayagam Foundation   … Petitioner 
                                              Versus
                 The State of Tamil Nadu and  Anrs  … Respondents

Date of Decision:  Pronounced On 15.06.2023

Coram: THE HON’BLE MR.SANJAY V.GANGAPURWALA, CHIEF JUSTICE
                                                  AND
               THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.AUDIKESAVALU

Citation: WP No.17728 of 2023 and WMP No.16822 of 2023

Introduction:

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondents from cutting the trees while expansion of Egmore Railway Station without following the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, which is
reported 2022 (4) SCC 289 and consequently, to direct respondents to frame guidelines based on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India for protecting trees in the city of Chennai as well the entire State of Tamil Nadu.

The Madras High Court on Friday ordered the Southern Railway to replace 12 tree saplings for each tree that is cut down during the Egmore Railway Station expansion project. The court has given permission to the petitioner to approach the court if the trees were not replaced properly.

Facts:

The petitioner, Arul, secretary of Pasumai Thaayagam Foundation, a non-governmental organization, approached the Madras High Court (MHC) seeking to restrain the southern railway from cutting down the trees for the Egmore railway station expansion project. The plea was listed before a division bench comprising Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice PD Audikesavalu. The Petitioner Said “I was shocked and dismayed that more than 400 trees had to be cut for the expansion of Chennai Egmore Railway station and several trees were cut down including 50-80 old trees which were protected by the government,”. The State Green Committee, the district green committee, and the tree authority are silent and they have failed to take appropriate actions to stop cutting of the trees under the urban areas preservation of Trees Act.

Issues:

  • Whether the trees are being cut or transplanted for expansion of
    Chennai Egmore railway station.
  • Whether the District Green Committee was not aware or negligent?

Legal Analysis:

The counsel for the Petitioner , submits that the petitioner came across the act of the respondents in indiscriminately cutting down the trees for expansion of the Chennai Egmore railway station. The petitioner learned that more than 400 trees have to be cut for expansion of the said railway station. About 50-80 year old trees which were protected by the Government are also cut down. The learned counsel submits that the respondents have not adhered to the guidelines laid down by the Apex Court in a case of T.N.Godavarman Thirumulpad, In Re vs. Union of India, reported in (2022) 4 SCC 289. According to the learned counsel, instead of cutting the 50-80 year old trees, they ought to be re-transplanting, as the technology is available to that effect.

On behalf of the respondents it is submitted that all the acts are being done after following proper procedure and obtaining the permission of the District Green Committee. The 103 trees are to be transplanted and 182 trees are to be cut and for each tree being cut, 12 saplings to be planted. Necessary permission has been obtained for 318 trees.

The Division Bench of Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice PD Audikesavalu , for a moment, do not doubt the intention of the petitioner. The trees are being cut or transplanted for expansion of Chennai Egmore railway station. Balance has to be struck between sustainable development on one hand and ecology and environment on the other. The safeguards have been provided, pursuant thereto the District Green Committee, Chennai has been constituted. The Chairman of the Committee is the District Collector. The other members are the Forest Officer, Superintending Engineer of Park, Executive Engineer of the Public Works Department, Assistant Engineer, Highways Department and so on.

Judgment:

The materials placed on record suggested to the High Court that the District Green Committee has granted permission on 10.05.2023 for felling of 182 trees, transplantation of 103 trees and pruning of 33 trees, totalling 318 trees. It is further observed by the Committee that some of the trees are transplanted in Queen Mary’s College without getting prior approval, as such, the Contractor was directed to plant saplings in the ratio of 1:12 for each tree. “We may today not doubt about the bonafides of the respondents also as the transplantation and felling of trees is necessitated for the expansion of the Chennai Egmore railway station. However, it also needs to be considered that the respondents cannot travel beyond the order passed by the District Green Committee. The respondents shall report to the District Green Committee about the compliance, that is transplantation of 103 trees, the saplings being planted so as to compensate for the felling of trees. The District Green Committee shall verify the same”.

Conclusion:

The Madras High Court disposed of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking direction forbearing the respondents from cutting the trees while expansion of Egmore Railway Station without following the judgment of the Supreme Court of India, which is reported 2022 (4) SCC 289.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

 JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY JANGAM SHASHIDHAR

Click here to view Judgement

 

0

Madras High Court Directs Madras Bar Association To Give Membership Without Any Discrimination.

blog, Blog , , ,

Case Title:  Elephant G.Rajendran … Petitioner

                                              Versus
                   The Registrar-Genera and  Anrs … Respondents

Date of Decision:  Reserved On  16.06.2023
                              Pronounced On 22.06.2023

Coram: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM 

Citation:  WP No.22460 of 2012
                             And
                MP No.2 of 2012 and WMP Nos.16543 and 16547 of 2023

Introduction:

The case of Elephant G Rajendran vs The Registrar General and others is a landmark judgment that has had a significant impact on the legal profession in India. The case concerned the Madras Bar Association’s (MBA) bye-laws, which made it difficult for ordinary lawyers to become members of the association. The bye-laws required lawyers to pay a high membership fee, and to have a minimum number of years of practice. Rajendran challenged the bye-laws, arguing that they were discriminatory and violated the right of lawyers to equality. The issues raised between the parties are directly relating to the Judicial Institution and the Justice Delivery System. Thus, this Court thought fit to consider the related issues carefully in the interest of the Judicial Institution, Justice Delivery System and in the interest of public. This Court thought fit that the relief sought for by the petitioner is to be considered in the perspective of the issues raised and if necessary by moulding the relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Facts:

The present case was filed by Senior Advocate Elephant Rajendran, who alleged that his son Neil Rashan was prevented from drinking water at the MBA hall by another Senior Advocate Mr. PH Pandian. Rajendran contended that since the Association was functioning upon public money, the facilities provided could not be denied to other practicing lawyers. He added that the actions of the Association were discriminatory and deprived lawyers from utilizing public facilities.

Among other things, Rajendran also contended that the association did not follow a transparent and democratic norm/guideline while admitting members. He also added that the action of the association-hosting meetings, parties, etc within the High Security Zone of the Madras High Court posed a threat to the High Court. He also brought to the attention of the court various instances of discrimination where the association had arbitrarily and in a discriminatory manner, not considered the membership application of different persons.

On the other hand, the association denied all such allegations and submitted that the incident of denying drinking water was incorrect. It was also submitted that the Association had, since then fitted two water cans for the usage of practicing lawyers. Citing all the contributions made by the Association, towards the High Court and in general, it was submitted that the matter may be closed since both the Senior Advocate and the netitioner’s son were no more.

Issues:

  • Whether the MBA’s bye-laws were discriminatory?
  • Whether the public facilities at the MBA were for public use?
  • Whether the MBA could deny access to its public facilities to lawyers who were not members of the association?

Legal Analysis:

The Court observed that ‘untouchability’ was not just caste-based discrimination but also all forms of social ostracism and exclusion which have their basis in ritual ideas of purity/pollution and hierarchy/subordination.

“A broad reading of Article 17 means that not only the caste-based practice of untouchability falls within the ambit of the constitutional prohibition, but practices that bear a family resemblance to “untouchability” are captured as well. This 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 (whether caste, or gender, or menstruation) can justify relegating individuals to an inferior position in society”, the Court observed.

Elite society of lawyers Should not  be created with Public cost.

“When such Associations are formulated inside the Court premises/public buildings and enjoying the public facilities at the cost of the pubic, then they are bound to admit the Lawyers, who all are willing to become the members of Bar Association”.

Referring to the provisions of the Advocates Act and the BCI Rules, the Court said that the choice of membership of an Association is not of the Association, but of the individual Advocate.

The Court said that creating class within the class of lawyers cannot be construed as intelligible differentia. It is an improper discrimination by conferring privileges upon a class of Lawyers, which is arbitrary and not falling within the classification of reasonable distinction.

 After perusing the Byelaws of the Madras Bar Association, the Court opined that that it is very difficult for a lawyer to become a member of the Madras Bar Association. Qualified members alone can propose the name of the Lawyer to become member. Therefore, choice is provided to the existing members. The existing members will have their own choice in selecting the members. Such allocation would undoubtedly cause not only discrimination but lead to the constitution of an elite community of lawyers within the lawyers community. Such a constitution of elite community of lawyers must not be allowed at the cost of the public, more-so in the public premises.

The Court also stated that when the High Court Administration granted space for Bar Associations by providing free electricity and other facilities at the cost of public, such Associations cannot be allowed to restrain the practicing lawyers from utilising such public facilities and in the event of allowing such Bar Associations to have Monopoly, the same is to be construed as unfair practice, unconstitutional and denial of basic rights to the other practicing lawyers.

Judgement:

Justice SM Subramaniam, presiding over the case, declared the incident as “despicable” and recognized the act of discrimination as a breach of constitutional guarantees, stating that it could be construed as ‘untouchability.

S.M. Subramaniam, J. gave the following directions:

 Madras Bar Association was directed to pay a some of Rs.5,00,000/- to the Senior Advocate towards compensation for the untoward incident happened in the Madras Bar Association premises on 06-01-2012, since it is vicariously liable for the conduct of its own members.

 It also has been directed to admit respondents no.3 and no.4 as members of the Madras Bar Association within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

 Madras Bar Association was directed to distribute applications for membership to all the interested practising lawyers in the High Court of Madras and admit them as members without discriminating any lawyer on the basis of caste, gender, religion, economic status, personal affiliations with Senior Advocates or dignitaries and political affiliations; without reference to the draconian Bye-Laws regarding eligibility criteria to become the member of the Association; or by amending the Bye-Laws suitably.

 In the event of failure on the part of the Association, the Madras High Court Administration and the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu are bound to initiate all appropriate actions in the manner known to law.

 The Bar Associations functioning in the High Court premises are directed to obtain prior permission from the Registrar General, Madras High Court for conducting / holding celebrations, functions, birthday parties, lunch parties etc., in the interest of safety and security in the High Court Premises.

Shifting of Madras Bar Association from “High Security Zone” to any other place in the High Court premises is within the exclusive domain of the High Court administration. It is for the Registrar General, Madras High Court to initiate appropriate actions by placing all the facts before the Chief Justice of Madras High Court.

Conclusion:

The court’s decision was a victory for the right of all lawyers to equality and access to public facilities. The decision has helped to ensure that the legal profession is more inclusive and accessible to all lawyers, regardless of their financial means or social status.The case is also significant because it sent a strong message to bar associations that they cannot function as “elite societies” at public cost. The court’s decision made it clear that bar associations have a responsibility to serve the public interest, and that they cannot discriminate against lawyers who are not members of the association.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

 JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY JANGAM SHASHIDHAR.

Click here to view Judgement

1 2 3 4 5 6