Two Advocates Removed From The Rolls By TN Bar Council For Serious Misconduct & Allegations Against A Judge [Read Order]

"An Advocate shall, at all times, comfort himself in a manner befitting his status as an Officer of the Court, a privileged member of the community; and a gentleman, bearing in mind that what may be lawful and 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," this is the quotation from relevant rules prescribing "standards of Professional Conduct and Etiquette" which Disciplinary Committee of Bar Council of Tamil Nadu chose to go with while holding two advocates and blood brothers R Chinthathirai Arockiam Selvi and Esthov Antony Ashok liable for serious misconduct warranting a serious punishment in eyes of the Bar and accordingly removed them off the Rolls of the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry and consequently debarred them from law practice in any court of law or Tribunal or Quasi-Judicial Tribunal within the territory of India. Disciplinary Committee of Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry awarded this punishment while acting on a complaint against the two advocates forwarded to it by the Additional Registrar General, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court. Basis of Complaint Thiru. R. Chinthathirai Arockiam Selvin is a Marine Engineer and an advocate. He had filed a criminal original petition before the Madurai Bench asking for direction to the opposite party to register his complaint under certain provisions of Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018 and for the same he had engaged Esthov Antony Ashok, his brother, as his counsel. When the matter came up for hearing, despite Esthov's presence, Selvin addressed the court in black robes. Enquiry by court later revealed Selvin was acting in dual capacity of a marine engineer and lawyer to which Selvin's rebuttal was that he can address the court from the table of Advocates whenever he is not in the sea performing his functions as a marine engineer. High Court took strong exceptions to this stand and directed Registry to lodge a complaint with Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry for appropriate action. "The Advocates Act, 1961 does not permit an enrolled advocate to profess dual profession. When there is a specific bar under the Advocates Act, 1961 and Bar Council Rules, that a person, who got enrolled in the Bar council, cannot take up any other profession or employment without suspending his practice has the audacity 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." Court also said that petitioner Selvin committed not a misrepresentation simpliciter but a fraud on the court by filing complaint on a grievance which was already taken note of and secondly by filing it under the law which had not yet come into force. It also says that Selvin by employing his brother as counsel has gone against the rules and same amounts to misconduct within the meaning of the Bar Council of India Rules. Counter Affidavit by Respondents' Bar Council says that instead of respondents Selvin and Esthov tendering unconditional apology over their misconduct, they have come out with statements in the form of counter affidavit making serious allegations, left and right, against the concerned judge which adds to the case against them. On the other hand, Esthov Ashok, in his counter affidavit has justified stand of his brother engaging him as counsel saying former has every right under Article 22(1) of the Constitution to engage a counsel of his choice. He has further stated in his affidavit that an "Advocate is not liable for Judicial Misconduct of the Judge" and that he has prima facie case that Justice G. Jeyachandran has committed the "Judicial Misconduct", in the disposal of both criminal petitions before him. He further states in his counter affidavit that while he was rightly pleading his client's case, Justice G. Jeyachandran acted as an advocate for the other side and tried his level best to prevent his argument, but despite that he continued his argument. He further says that he acted in accordance with Section 11 of Chapter II part Vl which deals with "Standards of Professional Conduct and Etiquette" of the Bar Council of India rules and runs as "An Advocate shall not be servile and whenever there is proper ground for serious complaint against a Judicial Officer. it shall be his right and duty to submit his grievance to proper authorities" and accordingly lodged complaints with the appropriate authorities to initiate in-house inquiry against Justice G. Jeyachandran. Esthov further alleges that Justice Jeyachandran lost his temper and made unwanted comments against him in the open court, which disparaged his name among the legal fraternity and in that regard he sought unedited video footage of the Court proceedings to unmask the malafide intention of...

Two Advocates Removed From The Rolls By TN Bar Council For Serious Misconduct & Allegations Against A Judge [Read Order]

Shayesta Nazir

Tags