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. Case facts were 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. 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. Charges against the advocates' Bar framed charges of grave misconduct against both and charged Esthov with contempt by making serious defamatory allegations against the concerned judge. It said that both the respondents without letting any evidence or defending themselves, have committed further contempt by filing a detailed counter affidavit independently. Discussion on Judges' and Advocates' Interestingly Disciplinary Committee of the Bar while awarding punishment to advocates' found it convenient to discuss position of judges' in present scenario and here are the relevant excerpts': "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 and blood and they also have heart and family. In the name of freedom of speech, and transparency 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 society. Right or wrong, the judicial order is subject 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 would definitely cause adverse impact in the society. 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 remedy available to the them in the manner known to law as in the largest democracy no problem is left without any legal remedy." Bar quoted Justice D.Y.Chandrachud in K.S.Puttaswamy V. Union of lndia AIR 2017 SC that "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.