2 lawyers debarred for abusing judge on social media

As per the complaint, the two delinquent advocates along with resorting to professional misconduct by going against the provision which bars advocates from appearing on behalf of family before any legal forum had also recorded abusive statements against the judge.

In this case, R Chinthathirai Arockiam Selvi engaged his brother Esthov Antony Ashok to appear on behalf of him in his case before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court. When the case came up for hearing, the engaged counsel was present in Court. But the litigant opted to argue himself, while wearing advocate’s robes. On being questioned by the Court, Arockiam Selvi submitted that he practised as an advocate when he was not working as Marine Engineer at sea.

Noting that such dual employment was in violation of Rule 49 of the Bar Council of India (BCI) Rules, Justice G Jayachandran directed the Tamil Nadu Bar Council to initiate disciplinary action against both advocates. However, the two advocates retaliated by filing affidavits before the Bar Council alleging that the judge had “acted as an advocate for the other side”. The affidavit also alleged that the judge had lost his temper and made unwarranted statements in open court to disparage the advocate’s name.

The affidavits also stated that a request had been made to obtain unedited video footage of the Court proceedings to “unmask the malafide intention of the presiding officer of the Court.”

However, the bar council disciplinary committee comprising Chairman R Singaravelan and members S Ilamvaluthi and Ravi Shanmugam on finding no merit in either of the contention proceeded to conclude that the two advocates were liable to be penalised for misconduct.

“The audacity and adamancy shown by both the advocates not only before the 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,” the committee held.

Also, terming the case as “shocking to the conscience”, the Disciplinary Committee on raising the tendency to direct verbal abuse at judges, particularly on social media forums, observed “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 particularly Facebook and WhatsApp.”

“A Judge, the moment her or she passes any public oriented sensitive order, immediately he or she 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 Judge also is being touched either directly or indirectly,” the committee added.