BEFO E THE DISC IPLINARY CO MMITTEE-I OF THE

BAR COUNCIL OF TAMIL NAD U & PUDUC HERRY. CHEN NAI

Thiru R.SINGARAVELAN, Senior Advocate, Chairman

Thiru S. ILAMVALUTHI, Member
Thiru RAVI SHANMUGAM, Member

Dated 30th day of April 2019

D.C.C.No. 58/2019

The Addl. Registrar,

Madurai Bench. - Complainant

-Vs-

Mr. R. Chinthathirai Arockiam Selvin (Ms.1 17 12012)

Mr. R. Esthov Antony Ashok (Ms.2754l2009)
Advocates,
Tuticorin & Madurai. -Respondents

ORDER

1. Leqislative History and udicia! Pronouncements:-

Preamble to Chapter ll notifying the Rules prescribing the standards of Professional

conduct and Etiquette framed under Sec.49(1Xc) of the Advocates Act, 1961 read with
the Proviso reminds the Advocates of their duties and responsibilities in nutshell in the
following manner:

"An Advocate shall, at all times, comfort himself in a manner befitting his
sfafus as an Ofticer of the Court, a privileged member of the community;
and a gentlemen, bearing in mind that what may be lawful and a moral for a
person who is not a member of the Bar, or for a member of the Bar in his
professional capacity may still be improper for an advocate. Without
preiudice to the generality of the foregoing obligation, an advocate shail
fearlessly uphold the interesfs of his ctient and in his conduct confirm to
the rules herein after mentioned both in letter and spirit. The rules
hereinafter mentioned contain cannons of conduct and etiquette adopted
as general guides; yet the specific mention thereof shatl not be constrained
as a denial of the existence of other equalty imperative though not
s pec ifical ly me nti o n ed.',

2' Section I of the above rules speaks about the Duties of an Advocate to the
court
in the following first four clauses:- ...2
 2

"Section l- Duty to the Court

1. An advocate shall, during the presentation of his case and while

otherwise acting before a court, conduct himself with dignity and self-
respecf. He shall not be seruile and whenever ther'e is proper ground for
serious complaint against a judicial officer, it shallbe his right and duty
to submit his grievance to proper authorities.
2. An advocate shall maintain towards the courts a respectful attitude,
bearing in mind that the dignity of the judicial office r.s essenfial for the
survival of a free community.
3. An advocate shall not influence the decision of a c:ourt by any illegal or
improper rnean so private communication with a judge relating to a
pending case are forbidden.
4. An advocatet shall use hrc besf efforfs to restrain and prevent his client
from resoriing to sharp or unfair practices or from doing anything in
relation to court, opposing counsel or parties which the Advocate
himself ought not to do. An Advocate shall refuse to represent the client
who persisfs in such improper conduct. He shall nc,t consider himself a
mere mouth-piece of the client and shall exercise his own Judgment in
the use of restrained language in correspondence, avoiding scurrilous
attacks in pleadings, and using intemperate languag'e during arguments
in court."

3. The Hon'ble Apex Court of 3 Hon'ble Judges in Mr. M. Veerabhadra Rao Vs Mr.
Tek Chand reported in 1984 SCC 571 (supp) at para 30 of their judgment in one
sentence sent a clear message to the entire world about the nobility of the legal
profession and the duty of an advocate in the following words:-

,'Legal Profession is monopolistic in character and this monopoly

itsetf inheres certain high traditions which its members are expected to
upkeep and uphotd. Members of the profession claimed that they are the
leaders of thought and societY'"

4. ln the words of Justice Krishna lyer in Bar Council of Maharashtra Vs M'V.

Dabholkar, (1976) 1 SCR 306 at P. 922, the role of the mernbers of the Bar is
categorized as follows:-

...3
 3

"The Bar iS not a private guild, like that of barbers, butchers and
candlestick-makers but, by bold contrast, a public institution committed to
public justice and pro bono public seruice. The grant of a monopoly license

to practice law is based on three assumptions: 7. There rs a soctally useful

function for the lawyer to perform, 2. The lawyer is a professional person
who will perform that function, and 3. His pefiormance as a professional
person is by himself and more formally, by the profession as a
regulated
whole. The central function that the legal profession must pertorm is
nothing less fhan the administration of justice (The Practice of Law is a
Public Utility-The Lawyer, the Public and Professional Responsibility by F.
Raymond Marks et al-Chicago American Bar Foundation, 1972, p.288-289).
A glance at the functions of the Bar Council, and it will be apparent that a
rainbow of puhlic utility duties, including legal aid to the poor, is casf on
these bodies in the national hope that the members of this monopoly will
serve society and keep to canons of ethics hefitting an honorable order. lf
pathological cases of members misb ehaviour occur, the reputation and
credibility of the Bar suffer a mayhem and who, but the Bar Council, is
more concerned with and sensitive to this potential disrepute the few black
sheep bring about the official heads of the Bar i.e. the Attorney General and
the Advocate General too are drsfressed if a lawyer'sfoops to Conquer' by
retort to soliciting, touting and other corrupt practices."

5. Facts - Complaint of the Learired Additional Reqistrar General (Madurai Bench)

With the above background of legal position we now take up the present
complaint dated 16.10.2018 forwarded by the Additional Registrar General, Registrar
(Judicial), Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai which runs as follows:-
"Thiru. R. Chinthathirai Arockiam Selvin is a Marine Engineer and
also an Advocate. He has filed CrI.OP(MD) No.15195/2018 by engaging a
Counsel viz., Mr. Esthov Antony Ashok (Enrl. No.275412009) seeking a
direction to the respondents to register his complaint date d 12.0g.201g
under Sec. 7 and 8 of the Prevention of Corruption (Amended) Act, 2O1g
against the respondents 6 to 11 in accordance with Part lt, para 12(1)(ii) of
-
the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti corruption Manuat.

4
 4

When this matter came up for hearing on 2tt.08.2018, though the

counsel on record Mr. Esthov Antony Ashok was prelrent, the petitioner K.
Chinthathirai Arockiam Selvin addressed the Court in lblack robes.

On enquiry by the Hon'ble High Court the aborre said person Thiru.
R. Ghinthathirai Arockiam Selvin, Marine Engineer', 195B, Cruzpuram,
Thoothukudi - 628 001, represented that he can address the Court from the
table of Advocates whenever he is not in the sea. So according to the
above said person, eventhough he is a Marine Engineer, by occupation, he
can practice as a lawyer whenever e is not in the sea. l{e claims that he can
play dual role. Taking strong exceptions to the stand of the above said
person, the Hon'ble High Gourt directed the Registry to lodge a complaint
with Bar Gouncil of Tamilnadu and Puducherry for appropriate action.

Further, I am to state that, the Hon'ble High Court also directed that
action may be initiated against Thiru. R. Esthov Antony Ashok (Enrl.
No.275412009), No.10, K.R. Kanagavel Nagar, Meenanrbalpuram, Madurai
625 002, Advocate on record, who is the brother of Thiru. R. Chinthathirai
Arockiam Selvin."

6. Basis of the Compl int - Judicial Order:-

The operative portion of the well considered Judicial order rJated 29.08.2018, on
the basis of which the present complaint is before us is reproduced below:-
"11. Now, the petitioner herein, though claims himself as an advocate and
entitled to argue his petition before this Court with robr:s, refer Sections 7
and I of the amended Act, which though notified in the Gazette on
26.07.2018, but not yet come into force and seek direction of this Court to
register the case under a provision of law, which i,s still born. Thus,
misleads this Court that the offence under Sec. 7 and 8 rlf the amended Act
is attracted on his complaint, unmindful of the fac't that the date of
appointment to put the amendment into force not yet notified and these
sections are stil! come into effect.

12. When this Court pointed out to Mr. R. Esthov Antc'ny Ashok, learned
Counsel that the new Act has not yet come into force, for want of notifying
the date of appointment, the learned counsel is not irrclined to lend his
ears. .5
 5

13. When the grievance of the petitioner had already been taken note of by
the Director of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption and the matter has been
fonararded to the Managing Director of TANGEDCO. Filing complaint dated
13.08.2018 to take action, under Sec. 7 and 8 of the Amended Act, which
has not come into force, is not a misrepresentation simpliciter, but an
attempt to commit fraud on the Court. The petitioner has filed this petition
on 16.08.2018, i.e, within 3 days of his complaint. ln the opinion of this
Court, it is abuse of process of law. lt is only to harass the respondents
herein, such action has been resorted by the petitioner. lt is unfortunate
that his counsel on record also not inclined to see the frivolousness of the
petitioner's contention. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the
petitioner has filed this petition with malafide intention and abuse of law.

14.|t he is an ordinary person, this Court could have simply dismissed the
Criminal Original petition without any further orders. But the affidavit
clearly indicates that the petitioner herein being an advocate also seruing
as Marine Engineer. He claims he can address from the table of the
advocate, whenever, the petitioner not in the sea.

15. The Advocates Act 196{, does not permit an enrolled advocates to
profess dual profession. When there is a specific bar under the Advocates
Act, 1961 and Bar Council Rules, that a person, who got enrolted in the Bar
council, cannot take up any other profession or employment without
suspending his practice has the adocity to plead that he can take up Marine
job and continue as an advocate and address the Court in robes. lt will be
detrimental to the Noble Profession. lt is high time the cleansing of such
attitude is allowed to continue without ribbing it in the bud, the profession
to start. Therefore, I refer the matter to the Bar Gouncil of Tamitnadu to
show cause the petitioner and also the counset, who none other than
the
blood brother of the petitioner, as to why action shalt not be taken
against
them for their misconduct.

16' ln the result, this Criminal Original petition is dismissed

with the above
direction."

Thus, the above quoted order has directed the Bar Council
to take Disciplinary
action against both the petitioner and his counsel,
who is none else than the petitioner,s
blood brother who appeared for the petitioner.

o
 6

7. Rule Position:-

The petitioner in Crl.OP is admittedly own blood brother of the second

respondent and hence he ought not to have appeared for the frrst respondent
and had
he appeared, it woukl definitely amount to misconduct within lhe meaning of
the Bar
Council of lndia Rules Part Vl and Sec. l, Clause 6 of Sec. I Duty to
the Court, -
Chapter ll, Sec. I Clause 6 mandatorily runs as follows:_
"An advocate shall not enter appearance act, ptead o,r practice in any way
before a court, tribunal or authority mentioned in Sec.30 of the Act, if sole
of any member thereof is related to his Advocate a:; father, grandfather,
son, grandson, uncle, brother, nephew, first cousin, husband, wife, mother,
daughter, sisfer, aunt, niece, father-in-law, mother-in-law, son-in-law,
b roth e r- i n - I aw, d a u g hter- i n- I aw o r s i ster- i n - I aw.,'

8. Case of the Complginant:-

The case of the complainant in nutshell is that when the above provision
mandatorily prohibits the appearance of one's own brother for conducting the case of
the brother the second respondent ought not to have appeared for his brother who is
the first respondent herein and thus he has committed professional misconduct and is
liable to be punished. The order of the Hon'ble High Court rlated 29.08.2018 in

Crl.O.P(MD) No.1519512.018 is marked as EX C1 and the Criminal Original Petition in

Crl.O.P.(MD).No.151951?-018 is marked as EX C2.

9. The Report received by the Director, Vigilance, and Anti- Corruption and the
DGP Vigilance and anti-corruption and the Vakalat filed by the second respondent on
behalf of the his blood brother are marked as Ex C3 and EX C4.
All the above documents are marked through the complainant official and they
are admissible in evidence as they are all not only the High Court documents, but also
not disputed.

9. Con ons of the Res

The respondents have not marked any document in suppo''t of their stand and
admitted everything as they cannot dispute the judicial order passed by the Hon'ble
High Court which has become final. Once they accept what are observed in the well
considered judicial order, they are bound by them and they cannot claim that they are

7
 7

above the judicial order. As the judicial order has pointed out clearly their misconduct
they should have tendered atleast unconditional apology. lnstead of tendering
unconditional apology both have come out with statements in the form of a counter
affidavit making left and right serious allegations against the Hon'ble Judge who has
passed a detailed and well considered judicial order in Crl. O.P.(MD).No.1519512018,
dated 29.08.2018.

10. Counter Affidavit of the Second Respondent:-

The second respondent has claimed before us that he has got bright chances for
elevation to the Bench of our High Court and he claims that his brother who is the first
respondent has got fundamental right under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of lndia to
engage him as his advocate.

He has further said in his counter affidavit making serious allegations against the
Hon'ble Judge and hence we have reproduced the same as it is as we do not want to
dealwith the same by substitute own words:

"t' No person who is arrested shall be detained in custody without being

informed, as soon as may be, of the grounds for such arrest nor shall he be
denied the right to consult, and to be defended by, Legal practitioner of his
choice."

Any AcU Rule/ Regulations, which is inconsistent or derogatory to the Part-lll of

the Constitution of lndia is void as per Article 13 of the Gonstitution of lndia, I am
having absolute right to plead/argue for my fill blood brother in Crl. O.P. (MD) No.
15195 of 2018 before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court on 29.08.2018.

3) " Advocate is not liable for Judicial Misconduct of the Judge,,.

I am having prima facie case that Hon'bte Dr. Justice G. Jeyachandran has
committed the "Judicial Misconduct", in the disposat of both Crt.O.p(MD)
575212018 and Crt.O.P. (MD) NO. i5195t2O1A.

Judicial Misconduct runs hereunder:

The Order crystal clearty and convincingly reflected

i) Bad faith
ii) Bias
iii) Abuse of authority,
iv) Disregard for fundamental rights,
v) lntentional disregard of the law
vi) Any purpose other than faithfut discharge of judicial duty.
 8

An intentional failure to follow the law, even with a benign motive, constitutes bad
faith and consequently Judicial Misconduct.

4) I uprightly submit that the Advocates are also an integral part of Judiciary. AS
an advocate it is my duty of uphold the dignity and decorum of the Judiciary.

Judges on the other hand is a public seruan, as per prevention of Corruption Act,
1988 as well as Prevention of Corruption (Amended) Act, 2018 (w.e.f.26.07.20181,
if any higher Judiciary Adjudicators committed the offence under the Prevention
of Corruption Act, appropriate authorities may register a conrplaint. !n the above
said case, Istrongl'y apprehend that Hon'ble Dr. Justice G. Jeyachandran,
deliberately exoneraterd the guilty (TANGEDCO) officials.

" !f guilty is acquitted innocent is punishecl".

5) ln the subiect matlter "Disciplinary Proceedings", when rightly pleaded my

client's case, the Hon'ble Dr. Justice G. Jeyachandran acted' as an advocate for
the other side and tried his level best to prevent my argumenl, but t continued. ln
accordance with Sectiion 11 of Chapter !! part Vl which deals with Standards of
Professional Conduct and Etiquette" of the Bar Council of Inrlia rules which runs
hereunder.

llAdveqate qhall not be servile and whenever there is proper ground

for serious complaint aqainst a Judicial Officer. it shall be his riqht
and dutv to submit his qrievance to proper authorities"

ln the light of the above, I lodged several complaints to the appropriate

authorities to initiate in-house inquiry against Justice DR. G. Jeyachandran,
Moreover, t sent the very same copy to Bar Council o't Tamil Nadu and
Puducherry.

6) The adjudicator Dr G. Jeyachandran lost his temper anrd made unwanted

comments against me in the open court, which disparaged nry name among the
legal fraternity. ln thiis regard I sought unedited video footage of the Court
proceedings to unmas,k the malafied intention of the presirJing officer of the
Court.

7l To divert the veracity of the case the adjudicator took anottrer issue regarding
the dual profession of my client. lt is impossible to be an Advocate and Marine
Engineer simultaneously, that is one in shore (land) another profession in sea.

9
 9

Self imposed suspension of Advocate profession is an inbuilt one in this case.

The nature of my Glient's profession is on contract basis, not a PERMANENT Job.
My client will inform the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Pondicherry, before he
regains the permanent Marine Engineer Profession to suspend my Advocate
Profession. The following Bar Council of lndia Rule 49 enable me to practice as
an advocate also, which runs hereunder.

" An advocate shall not be a fu!!-time salaries employee of any person,

Government, firm corporation or concern, so long as he continues to practice,

and shall on taking up any such employment, intimate the fact to the Bar Council
on whose roll his name appearc and shall thereupon cease to practice as an
advocate as Iong as he continues in such employment."

As the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent itself is a clear proof for
misconduct and contempt it is marked as EX C5.

tllou nte r Affi d autpflhq Frst ResBoLn dent:

The Counter affidavit of the first respondent is still worse as it has abused the
Hon'ble Judge who has passed the order in Crl. O.P.(MD).No.1519512018 dated
25.09.2018 and it is marked as Ex C6. We do not want to add or delete or shortan the
same with our words and hence we have chosen to reproduce the same as it is:

"May I please this member for giving me an opportunity to express

my grievance and opinions,

1. I am pleased to inform that the irrelevant order passed in CrI.OP(MD)

No.1519512018 dated 29th August 2018 is not the Final Order of the petition.
What I mean to say that the erroneous order was not passed by the largest
bench of our supreme Gourt of !ndia.
2. This Committee should asked for the unedited video clippings of the netire
proceedings before Mr. Jeyachandran on 28th and 29th of August 2018 to
know the complete history.
3. The most corruptive Judiciat officer like Mr. Jeyachandran has to be dealt
in accordance with sec. 7 and 8 of the prevention of corruption act, 19gg
(amended in 208 with effect from 26th July 2}1gl
4. Corruption in Judiciary has to be eliminated in accordance with law.
5. As per para 13 in between the lines 3 to 6 of the erroneously, fraudutentty,
presuppositionly determined order made in Crl. OP(MD) No.1519E l211g
dated 13.08.2018, which runs hereunder,

....10
 : 10 :

"Filing complaint dated 13.08.2018 to take action, under Sec.7 and 8 of

the Amendment Act, which has not come into force, is not
misrepresentation simpliciter, but an attempt to commit fraud on the
Court.
As per the annexure sheet a layman known that the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988(as amended by Act 16 of the 2018, w.e.f.26th Juty
2018"
6. Because of the fraudulent people like Mr. Jeyaclhandran, our lndian
economy is coming down. Economic offence was donr; by Jeyachandran.
7. As per Sec.49(1) of the Advocates Act, 1961, lam entitled to submit my
complaint to this committee.
8. The contention of the Advocate Jeyachandran is contrary to the Advocates
Act., that full blood brother shall not enter appearance act, plead or
practice in anv wasy before a court, Tribunal or Authority.
9. As " Sec. Vll - Siection on other Employments"
"49. An advocate shall not be a full time salaried employee of any
person, ,Government, firm, corporation or concern, so long he
continues to practice and shall, on taking ulo any employment,
intimate the fact to the Bar Council on whose roll his name appears
and shall thereupon cease to practice as an advocate so long as he
continues in such emptoyment."
10.lam not a ful! time employee while lam addressing before the Court.
l1.Before 12th January 2008, lwas a fut! time employee.
12.1n order to save my personnel liberty from a few fraurlulent advocates in
our esteemed court, I had done regular law degree course at the cost of my
lucrative professional earnings of Ten Crores of lndian [lupee as on today.
l3.Because of the illegal activities of Jeyachandran, lwr:nt of huge mental
agony and pain. My prestigious ancestor house was kept in dark because
of judicial irregu[arities in various places and forms.
14.1 submit that none of our Judicial Officers was trained in the concept of,
"Doctrine of adrninistration in joint tenancy properties""
15.1 had a huge list of fraudulent advocates and Judicial Ofl'icers.
16.The reportable judgment dated 25th September 2018, in Writ Petition (Civil)
No.95 of 2018, Ashwin Kumar Upadhyay Vs Union of lndia and others" may
clear the doubts of this disciplinary Committee.

....11
 :11 :

Prayer:

As per Sec.392 of the Gode of Criminal Procedure, 1973, this matter to the
larger Bench of Judges."

12. The question is as to whether the stand taken by them in their counter affidavit
as well as in the complaint before us is a misconduct or not and if the answer is in the
affirmative the nature of the punishment required to be awarded against them? Hence,
we do frame the following charges:-

13. CHARGES:

We have framed the following charges on their appearance before us

1. That the second respondent has committed a grave misconduct by

filing vakalat which is C4 for his blood brother which is a serious
misconduct.
2. That the second respondent knowing fully well that his brother is a part
time marine engineer which is against Rules 47 to 49 of the Bar
Council of lndia Rules ought to have taken steps to get his practice
suspended. But, he has justified the same and thus both have
committed the misconduct.
3. That the second respondent has made serious defamatory allegations
against the Hon'ble Judge and thus has committed contempt.
4. That the first respondent is by profession a part time Marine Engineer
and a Part time Lawyer. He has played dual role which is as per Rules
47 to 49 of the Bar Council of India Rules wrong.
5. That being an advocate he ought not to have engaged his own brother
as his advocate. Thus he has committed a misconduct.
6. That he has made serious allegations against the Hon'ble Judge of the
High court. Thus he has committed not only the contempt but also
misconduct.

Both the respondents without letting any evidence or defending themsetves, have
committed further contempt by filing a detailed counter affidavit independengy and the
counter affidavit of the 2nd respondent is marked as Ex C5 when the counter of the 3rd
respondent is marked as Ex C6.

,,12
 12:

The way in which both the respondents behaved before us and filed counter
affidavit making serious and baseless allegations against the reputed Hon'ble Judge of
the High Court is shocking to our conscience and we got aback.

14. DISCUSSION

1. The Position of the Hon'ble Judges in the present set up:-

We feel that Judge now-a-days is well protected physically with the help of
police force but not mentally because of the unpredictable and magical advancement of
the scientific technologies padicularly Facebook and Whatsapp A Judge, the moment
passes any public oriented sensitive order, immediately he is being subjected to
criticism and debate in social media. One order passed by a court becomes hundred
orders because of various mischievous interpretations given by social media. The
personal conduct of the Hon'ble Judge also is being touched either directly or indirectly.

Though the judiciary is independent , the Hon'ble Judge is driven to a

small circle to keep themselves away from any controversy and criticism. The society
often forgets that the Hon'ble Judges also are made up of flesh arrd blood and they also
have heart and family. ln the name of freedom of speech, and transperancy forgetting
the fundamental fact that their judgment is judgment and is questionable only in the
appellate forum they are being criticized.

Each and everyone has to realize that if the Hon'ble Judges are not
allowed to discharge their duties free from criticism and pressure, the loss is not to them
but only to the society. Right or wrong , the judicial order is subjer:t to challenge only in
the appellate forum and not in the social media. Any criticism in the social media would
definitely damage the independence of judiciary and the same vrould definitely cause
adverse impact in the society.

2. Present Comrrlaint: Role of Advocates:

Now coming back to the complaint before us, we ferel that if the Hon'ble
Judges are not allowecl to feel safe even in the Court Hall bt:cause of very few
emotional and personal interested oriented advocates, then road of Justice will not lead
-
us home but to the graveyard. Every advocate has to realize that by criticizing the
Court, we choose to criticize ourselves and cut sorry figure in the public. !f the
advocates have any grievance they have to resort to the legal rerredy available to the
them in the manner known to law as in the largest democracy no problem is left without
any legal remedy. ....13
 .13:
3. we have to at this ptace recall the words of the Hon'ble Apex Court in two
decisions mentioned below: -

33. ln Jaswant Singh v. Virender Singh, 1995 Supp (1) SCC 384, it uras obserued:

"36........ An advocate has no wider protection than a layman when he commits

an act which amounts to contempt of court. lt is most unbeftting for an advocate
to make imputations against the Judge only because he does not get the
expected result, which according to him is the fair and reasonable result available
to him. Judges cannot be intimidated to seek favourable orders. Only because a
lawyer appears as a pafi in person, he does not get a license thereby to commit
contempt of the Court by intimidating the Judges or scandalizing the courts. He
cannot use language, either in the pleadings or during arguments, which is either
intemperate or unparliamentary. Ihese safeguards are nor for the protection of
any Judge individually but are essential for maintaining the dignity and decorum f
the Courts and for upholding the majesU of law. Judges and cour(s are not
unduly sensifiye or touchy to fair and reasonable criticism of their judgments.
Fair comments, even if, out-spoken, but made without any malice or attempting to
impair the administration of justice and made in good faith in proper language do
not attract any punishment for contempt of court. However, when from the
criticism a deliberate, motivated and calculated attempt is discernible to bring
down the image of judiciary in the estimation of the public or to impair the
administration of justice or tend to bring the administration of justice into
disrepute the courts must bistre themselves to uphold their dignity and the
maiesty of law. The appellant, has, undoubtedly committed contempt of the Court
by the use of the objectionable and intemperate tanguage. A/o sysfe m of justice
can tolerate such unbridled licence on the part of a person, be he a lawyer, to
permit himself the libefi of scandalizing a court by casting unwarranted,
uncalled for and uniustified aspersions on the integrity, ability, impartiality or
fairness of a Judge in the discharge of his judiciat functions as it amounts to an
interterence with the dues course of administration of justice.

34. ln Subrata Roy Sahara v. lJnion of lndia, (2014) 8 SCC 4TO, itwas obse rued:

188. The number of similar titigants, as the parties in this group of caseg is on
the increase. They derive their strength from abuse of the legatprocess.
Counsel
are available, if the litigants is witling to pay their fee. Their percentage
is slighly
higher at the lower levels of the judicial iierarchy, and almost non-existent
at the
....14
 :14:
level of the Supremel Court. One wonders what is it that a Judge should be made
of, to deal with such litigants who have nothing fo lose. What is fhe level of merit,
grit and composure required to stand up to the pressures of today's litigants?
What is it that is needed to bear the affront, scorn and ridicule hurled at officers
presiding over courts? Surely one would need superhumans to handle the
emerging pressures on the judicialsysfem. The resultant duress is grueling. One
would hope for support for officers presiding over coutts fro,,tl the legal fraternity,
as also, from the superior judiciary up to the highest level. Then and anly then,
will it be possible kt maintain equilibrium essential to de,al with complicated
disputations which arise for determination all the time irre:spective ot'the level
and the stature of the Court concerned. And also, to dealwith such litigants.

The above two judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court are quoted and approved in
Mahipal Singh Rana Vs State of UP 2016 (8) SCC 335 and infact the Hon'ble Apex
Court has gone one step further and suggested for amendment too.

15. DIGNITY: FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT:-

We have to necessarily quote the words of the Hon'ble Mr.Justice

Dr.D.Y.Chandrachud J in K.S.Puttaswamy -Vs- Union of lndia reported in (2017) 10
SCC P1 at para 108 here below:-

" There is inseparable relationship between protection of life and

liberty, with dignity. Dignity was as Constitutional value finds expression in the
Preamble. The Constitutional Vision seeks the realization of Justice ((Social,
economic and political); liberty (of thought, expression, belief, faith and
worship); equality (as a guarantee against arbitrary treatment of individuals) and
fraternity (which assures a life of dignity to every individual). These constitutional
points exist in unity to facilitate a humane and compassionate society."

Again at para 1 19, the Hon'ble Judge has declared as follows:-

,, To live is to live with dignity. The draftsmen ,of the Constitution

defined their viersion of the society in which constitutional values would be

attained by emphasizing, among other freedoms, liberty and dignity' So,
fundamental is dignity that permeates of the rights guaranteerd to the individual
by Part.lll."

How can we shut our eyes when unfair , untruthful and unconscionable
comments are thrown at the Judiciary which guarantee to all of us life with human
dignity and personal libedy. lnfact our basic constitutional concept is individual right or
dignity always is subject to public interest and right. ... ..15
!

:15

16. GONCLUSION:

dignity of judiciary cannot be

We therefore do not hesitate to hold that , the
allowed to be impaired in the name of fair criticism or
debate in social media or in public

meeting or in the court room by any one however superior

they may be failing which the
will lose its
doctrine of judicial review which is the basic structure of our constitution
pillar of our Constitution.
sanctity and the people will be made to lose confidence on the

ln that view of the matter the adacity and adamancy shown by the
respondents not only before the Hon'ble Judge in the court but also before us cannot
be spared and hence we are inclined to hold that they have a serious misconduct
warranting a severe punishment in the manner known to law.

17. ORDER

As the respondents inspite of our advise and warning have not chosen to
correct themselves and indulge in making allegations again and again against the
Hon'ble Judge, not only orally but also by filing affidavit before us we do not hesitate to
award a major punishment of Removal from the Roll of the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu
and Puducherry consequently we restrain both of them from practicing in any Court of
Law or Tribunal or Quasi Judicial Tribunal within the Territory of India with effect from
the date of receipt of copy of this order. There is no order as to costs. The respondents
are directed to surrender the Original Enrolment Certificate and ldentity Card to the Bar
Council with 3 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

Sd/-xxxx
(R.STNGARAVELAN)
CHAIRMAN

Sd/-xxx Sd/-xxxx
(S.TLAMVALUDHt) (RAVI SHANMUGAM)
MEMBER MEMBER

M
COFY-
CEHITFIED AS TBiJE

REr:r' STHnn
Oiscidinat
Lf#Sf;*'*
rncil ot Tafi