The Madras High Court has expanded the interpretation of Article 17 of the Indian Constitution, which forbids untouchability in any form.
Justice SM Subramaniam made important remarks, stating that untouchability encompasses not only caste-based discrimination but also practices of social ostracism and exclusion rooted in ideas of purity, pollution, and hierarchy.
The court's verdict emphasized that all practices resembling untouchability fall under the purview of Article 17 and are deemed unacceptable.
Brief Facts:
The Court's decision was prompted by a case involving the membership rules of the Madras Bar Association, which were challenged as elitist and exclusionary. The court condemned the association's bye-laws for enabling class discrimination and making it difficult for ordinary lawyers to become members. As a result, the court issued an order mandating membership without any form of discrimination.
Observations by the Court:
Justice Subramaniam underscored that the scope of untouchability should not be limited to religion or caste, as the Constituent Assembly rejected an amendment seeking such a restriction during the drafting of Article 17. Instead, the Court viewed the Constitution as a transformative document aimed at eradicating social hierarchies and ensuring social justice for the marginalized. Accordingly, the court emphasized the need for a broad interpretation of the article to align with the Constitution's liberating philosophy.
While the petitioner alleged caste discrimination, the court classified the Association's actions as class discrimination, highlighting that economic status can be a basis for untouchability. The court noted that any discriminatory practice resulting from exclusionary ideas of hierarchical subordination is strictly prohibited under the Constitution.
Furthermore, the court recognized the importance of reputation as an element of personal security protected by the Constitution, stating that a good reputation is essential for a lawyer's social standing and future prospects. It equated an injury to one's reputation with a personal injury and highlighted the constitutional safeguard of the right to life, liberty, and property, including the right to a good reputation.
The decision of the Court:
The petition was disposed of in the above observations.
Case Name: Elephant G Rajendran v The Registrar General and others
Coram: Hon’ble Justice SM Subramaniam
Case No. WP No.22460 of 2012
Advocates of the Petitioner: Adv. Mr.Elephant G.Rajendran
Advocates of the Respondent: Advs. Mr.Karthik Ranganathan, Mr.M.S.Krishnan, Mr.V.R.Kamalanathan, Mr.A.Mohandoss and Mr.S.Mahaveer Shivaji
Read Judgement @LatestLaws.com:
Picture Source :
