1

BEFORE THE ENROLMENT COMMITTEE OF THE BAR COUNCIL OF AT CHENNAI

Mr.R.Singaravelan, Senior Advocate, Member Mr.N.Chandrasekharan, Member 19 day of November, 2018.

T.N.E.C.R.No. 10 of 2018

Mr.M.Nelson .. Petitioner

Vs.

Mrs.Y.Muthumalar .. Respondent

ORDER

The complainant is a resident of Panainita Vilai Veedu, Pudukkadai Village and Post, District and he has come out with the present complaint against the Respondent making serious allegations as follows:-

1) That the respondent and her husband were the vegetable vendors and they had not studied law and gone to any law college for undergoing the couse;

2) Whileso, in 2014 they had taken a shop for the rent at Pudukkadai and installed the Board indicating that the respondent and her husband are advocates with the qualification M.A., L.L.M., and her husband with B.B.A., L.L.B. That apart they installed a huge Board mentioning National e.Governance Plan, Common Service Centers Scheme, J.M.Aluminum Fabrication, Interior Decoration, PVC Doors with the respondent’s name as an Advocate Mrs.Y.Muthumalar and her husband’s name Mr.A.Jaisingh B.B.A., L.L.B. Legal Advisors. The e-mail, I.D. also is mentioned under the name of Mr.A.Jeyasingh as e-mail:[email protected]. The phone numbers mentioned in the huge board are 04651-234632, 9487372248.

3) That during the alleged study period for the law degree, the respondent was working as a teacher for Yoga classes in Punitha Arockiya Matha Matric Higher Secondary School, Puthukkadai and Bethlahem Matric Higher 2

Secondary School, . As she was a teacher in both the above schools she could not have studied law in Sri Krishna Devaraya University, S.V.Puram, Anantapur, State of Andhra Pradesh dated 24.03.2016.

4) That the respondent joining hands with her husband has been involving in various unlawful activities of rowdyism, Kattapanjayath and other unlawful activities by claiming herself as a lawyer.

5) Lot of common people are affected by the respondent and her practice.

6) Bethlahem Matric Higher Secondary School, Karungal by its letter dated 15.10.2018 received by the Bar Council office, has submitted before this Committee that Mrs.Y.Muthumalar is not at all an employee of their school and she never worked from the year 2010 -2013 or subsequent days.

7) But the Former Correspondent of Munchirai Punitha Arockiya Matha Matric Higher Secondary School and the Vice Principal of Munchirai Punitha Arockiya Matha Matric Higher Secondary School, has forwarded a duly notarised affidavit stating that she served during the tenure from 2009 May to 2015 April as Yoga Teacher for 2 days in weekends and no substitutes were appointed in her place. Her name was found on the roll of the school and she used to sign attendance register and salary register also.

8) That she has filed a Civil suit against him and got an order of Statusquo and after getting Statusquo, she, with the help of the Police removed the stone structure put forth by him and set fire and this she has violated the Court order.

9) She used to put forth three different signature on different occasions wantonly a willful with a view of cheat others.

The Respondent Advocate in reply to the above contentions of the complaint has put forth the following contentions:-

1) Due to her interest in Yoga she was requested by the above schools to teach Yoga to the students and teachers as a Honourary Guest faculty member and for that she has neither signed any document nor the attendance register as a teacher for Yoga.

3

2) When she was undergoing the Law course in Sri Vijaya Nagar College of Law, State of Andhra Pradesh from 2010 onwards she had not taken any Yoga classes in the above schools and the schools had chosen to appoint some other persons for that purpose.

3) Her husband when he was undergoing third year Law course got permission to run the National e.Governance Plan, Common Service Centers Scheme, Department of Information Technology, Government of and hence he discontinued the Law course and he has been looking after the same. He could not be able to complete the Law course and he has not anywhere practiced as an Advocate

4) The complainant is a close relative of her husband’s family and there was a partition deed of 1968 between her husband’s Grandmother and the complainant’s father and his brothers as alleged in the complaint. She has further contented that the complainant cheated her husband’s Grandmother and got another deed registered on 25.11.1972 in respect of a pathway and thereby defeated their right of using the pathway of six links to reach their residence. As the mutual exchange deed and consequential partnership deed dated 25.03.1992 are against the original partition on 05.01.1968, she submitted a petition to the Inspector of General, Registration Department, Chennai for the cancellation of those deeds.

5) She has again contented that on 18.11.2017, the complainant and his brother attempted to put up a construction on the pathway and when the same was questioned, she was abused by the complainant and was stoned with bricks. As she sustained injuries, she got admitted in Siva Lingam Hospital a private Hospital as inpatient and got discharged only on 20.11.2017. There is a criminal case in respect of that and that apart her husband also has filed a civil suit in O.S. No.149/2017 on the file of the Learned District Munsif Court, Kulithurai in respect of the pathway and in that Statusquo was granted.

6) It is her further case that the complainant is the man of power and influence and he has lodged a false complaint against her with a view to blackmail her and escape from clutches of Law. In support of her above contentions she has marked 24 documents as mentioned below:-

4

R 1 to R 24 :

Sl.No. Date Document Information 1. 16.06.1992 S.S.L.C Certificate Xerox 2. 25.05.1994 H.S.C. Certificate Xerox 3. 17.07.1998 B.Com Certificate Xerox 4. 12.11.2010 B.Com Convocation Certificate Xerox 5. 12.11.2010 1996-97 certificate 6. 04.04.2007 Temporary Certificate for Yoga 7. 04.04.2007 Law Degree First Semester Mark Sheet 8. 04.04.2007 Law Degree Second Semester Mark Sheet 9. 04.04.2007 Law Degree Third Semester Mark Sheet 10. 04.04.2007 Law Degree Fourth Semester Mark Sheet 11. 04.04.2007 Law Degree Fifth Semester Mark Sheet 12. 04.04.2007 Law Degree Six Semester Mark Sheet 13. 24.03.2014 LLB Convocation 14. 15.07.2013 Law Degree Bonafide Certificate 15. 15.07.2014 Copy of the Attendance 16. 15.07.2013 Copy of Migration Certificate 17. 15.07.2013 LLM First Year Mark Sheet 18. 15.07.2013 LLM Second Year Mark Sheet 19. 14.07.2015 Certificate of Practice 20. 25.09.2015 Certificate of membership issued by Bar Council of Tamilnadu 21. 12.04.2014 Provisional Certificate of Enrolment as an Advocate issued by Bar Council of Tamilnadu 22. 04.04.2018 Letter sent to Inspector General of Registration, Chennai by Mr.Jeyasingh 23. Statusquo order in case no.149/17 24. 05.01.1968 Partitioner Document

7) The complainant also has marked nearly 21 documents Sl. No. 3 -23 including 2 FIR’s dated 10.09.2018 one against the complainant and another against the Respondent and there is another FIR, dated 22.11.2017 in FIR No.402/2017 against the Respondent. They are mentioned below:-

C 1 to C 21 :

Sl.No. Date Document Information 1. 15-11-2017 Complaint given by the Petitioner against Respondent before the Sub-Inspector of police, Pudukkadai Police Station. 2. 21-12-2017 Complaint given by the Petitioner against Respondent and her husband Jeyasingh before the District Superintendent of Police, . 5

3. 28-02-2018 Complaint given by the Petitioner against Respondent and her husband Jeyasingh before the District Superintendent of Police, Kanyakumari District. 4. 22-11-2017 FIR No.402/2017 registered against the Respondent on the complaint of Petitioner. 5. 19-11-2017 FIR registered against the Petitioner on the complaint of Respondent. 6. Acquittance register showing the salary of the Respondent signed and received by her from June 2012 to December 2017. 7. Attendance register signed by the Respondent from 2012 to August 2013 8. Photos showing the law consultancy centre of the Respondent wherein her husband Jeyasingh also his degree as L.L.B, though he has not completed law. 9. Certificates of the Respondent 10. 2009 Resolution 11. 02.05.2018 The petitioner sent RTI to Bethlehem Higher Secondary School Karungal. 12. The Petitioner sent RTI to the Inspector Matriculation School Thirunelveli. 13. Acknowledgement Card 14. Acknowledgement Card 15. 19.07.2018 The petitioner sent first appeal before the director Matriculation school Chennai - 600 006. 16. 31.07.2018 The reply sent by joint director Matriculation School, Chennai - 600 006. 17. Series of photos 18. 03.10.2018 Notice Issued by the Inspector of Police, Pudukadai Police Station. 19. Magazine saint Arokia Matha Church, Pudukadai. 20. 10.09.2018 F.I.R. against the Petitioner 21. 10.09.2018 F.I.R. against the Respondent.

8) Both the complainant and the Respondent have deposed before this Committee what all they have averred in their respective complaint and counter statement. Both have marked above documents without any objection from the other party.

9) In this background the Committee has to decide as to whether the Enrolment of the Respondent Advocate was erroneous and whether her subsequent conduct has made her ineligible to practice as an advocate. When the Respondent appeared before the Committee on 26.09.2018 the following charges where framed namely :-

a) That without undergoing the regular law course, you have got enrolled yourself on 12.04.2014 having completed the law course in 2014, while working in two schools.

6

b) By installing huge flex boards claiming to be an advocate running National e.Governance Plan, Common Service Centers Scheme, Department of Information Technology, Government of India, you have disqualified yourself from practicing as an advocate.

c) That by claiming to run J.M.Aluminum Fabrication, Interior Decoration, PVC Doors, The Xerox, DTP works, Lamination and Spiral binding shops you have become disqualified under sec. 45 of the Advocates Act, read with Sec VII Part VI of Chapter II and Chapter III of the Bar Council Rules.

d) That as per rule 2 of Chapter III Bar Council of India Rules Part VI of the Bar Council of India Rules framed under section 49 (1) (ah) of the Advocates Act, 1961, you ought not to have entered into any arrangement for sharing any remuneration with any person or legal practioner who is not an advocate.

e) That being an advocate you have violated admittedly the Statusquo order granted by the Learned Principal District Munsif, Kuzhithurai in O.S. No.149/2017 by demolishing the stone compound put forth by the complaint with the help of the police and set fire.

10) The Respondent after taking note of the above charges has vehemently contented before this Committee, that she is innocent and it is the complainant who created all sorts of problems against her and her husband because of which she could not be able to work peacefully. She cried and shed tears before the Committee and uttered very strong and angry words against the complainant who was present before the Committee. After hearing the parties at the request of Respondent the case was adjourned to 08.10.2018 and on that date she appeared along with a Counsels namely, Mr.D.Gopal and Mr.K.Kathiresan who also argued for the rejection of the complaint.

11) The issue before this Committee is as to whether the Respondent Advocate has incurred any of the disqualifications for appropriate action under sec. 26 (2) of the Advocates Act, 1961 or whether she has suppressed her employment particulars, present as well as past in her Enrolment Application warranting action for removal under sec 26 (1) of the Advocates Act, 1961 ?.

7

12) We have carefully perused the complaint as well as the counter statement, along with nearly 45 documents apart from the oral submissions of both the parties.

13) The first contention of the complainant is that she could not have studied the law course regularly in view of her employment in two schools as mentioned earlier. In support of his contention he has marked the payment register of the Respondent more than 30 months from June 2012 onwards and a mere perusal of those documents not seriously objected by the Respondent would reveal that she was regularly receiving salary for each months at least from October 2012 onwards upto December 2017 under the seal and signature Correspondent of Munchirai Punitha Arockiya Matha Matric Higher Secondary School, Puthukkadai. The complainant has also marked certain pages of attendance register also.

14) In contra, the Respondent Advocate has produced the Semester Marksheets and also a document called attendance certificate dated 15.07.2013 issued under the seal and the signature of the Principal, Sri Vijayanagar College of Law, Anantapur which states that the Respondent has studied three years L.L.B. in that college during the year 2010 to 2013 and she was having 82% attendance during her studies.

15) It is not known as to how and why such a certificate was issued by the Principal and it is not made clear as to whether all the students were issued with such a certificate. Admittedly the law college is in Anantapur which may be thousand kilometers away from the Respondent’s native place and the school in which she claims to have been working even as on date as evidenced from the payment register marked before the Committee by the complainant. It is unbelievable to accept that one can work even as a part time teacher in a school and then attend the law classes at Anantapur, state of Andhra Pradesh. From the documents marked before this Committee we can easily come to an irresistible conclusion that she could not have undergone the regular law course from 2010, 2013 -2014 to get a law degree by satisfying Rule 5 of the Bar Council of India Rules, Part IV Rules of Legal Education. As she could not have undergone the regular law course, her law degree cannot be said to be a valid law degree in the eye of law.

16) However, with a view to verify as to whether she has disclosed the same in her Enrolment Application about her previous employment we called for 8 the Enrolment Application and on seeing the same, we were shocked to note that she has suppressed her previous employment in her Enrolment Application. Even assuming without admitting that she was only a part time worker during her course of study it is her duty to disclose the same in her Enrolment Application and the failure to do so disentitles her to continue her practice as an Advocate as her Enrolment is purely on suppression of material facts.

17) Secondly, the payment register marked by the complainant from June 2012 to December 2017 would clearly reveal that even after her enrolment as an Advocate in 2014 in Roll No. Ms.526/2014 which is against not only Rule 47, 49 and 52 of Sec.VII of Part VI of Chapter II but also Rule 2 Chapter III the Bar Council of India Rules. As the records reveal that she was in the school as a Yoga teacher and receiving remuneration for every month upto December 2017, she has attained disqualification to practice as an advocate under the above provisions of law. We cannot definitely say as to whether she is working as on date even after December 2017 as there is no positive evidence produced by Respondent except the Bethlahem Matric Higher Secondary School, certificate which runs contrary to the letter of the Former Correspondent of Munchirai Punitha Arockiya Matha Matric Higher Secondary School, Puthukkadai, who was the Correspondent from May 2009 to 2015 dated 01.10.2018. There is no necessity for the Former Correspondent to submit a false affidavit before this Committee against the Respondent and hence, we have come to an irresistible conclusion that :-

i. The Respondent without attending the regular course of law got the law degree while working in the schools in her locality which are thousand kilometers away from the Law college.

ii. That she has suppressed her previous employment in her Enrolment Application which is serious in Nature, warranting disqualification.

iii. That even after her Enrolment as an advocate in Roll No. Ms.526/2014, she was working as a teacher in school upto December 2017 and she has not positively said in the counter that she is not working as on date. Though the above findings of us themselves are sufficient to suspend her practice on her own admissions in her counter the xerox copies of the huge name 9

board along with the photographs filed before this Committee we are constrained to proceed further in this matter to satisfy our conscience that we are not unreasonable in sending her out of practice. iv. In her counter statement, she has not disputed herself as a Yoga Teacher. As evidenced from paras 13 and 14 of her counter what all she has contented is during her law course substitutes were appointed in the schools in her place. At para 16, she has admitted that her husband has not completed the law course as he got the permission to run a centre for Adhar Service, National e.Governance Plan, Common Service Centers Scheme, Department of Information Technology, Government of India.

v. But, the huge boards installed in various places or atleast in her place would reveal that her husband’s name is shown to be in posssession of qualification of B.B.A., L.L.B. vi. Further the respondent’s name also is shown as an advocate on that board and with that qualification both are running various business concerns in the name of J.M. Aluminum Fabrication, Interior Decoration, PVC Doors and then common service e.Governance Plan. Being an Advocate, she ought not to have been a party to the above business transactions in view of Rules 47, 48, 49 50 and 52 of Sec. VII of part VI of Chapter II of the Bar Council of India Rules and Rule 2 of Chapter III of the same. On this grounds also she has suffered a disqualification under Rule 2 of the chapter III of part VI and of other above Bar Council of India Rules. vii. Further, her conduct towards the Court orders as per her own admission is not only a serious misconduct but also contemptuous warranting stringent action against her entitlement to practice. At para 10 of page no.3 of her counter she has admitted that she has filed a civil suit in O.S.No.149/2017 on the file of the Learned Principal District Minusif, Kulithurai and there is an order of statusquo in that. As an advocate she is deemed to be aware of the meaning of statusquo order which means that the things in a particular position on the date of order of statusquo should remain 10

in the same position as it was on the date of the order, unless and otherwise statusquo anti was granted by the Committee. At para 10 of her counter after saying that Statusquo was granted she has further said that with the help of the police, she removed the stone blockade put forth by the complainant so as to enable her to use it as a pathway as she does not have any other pathway. Thus, she literally modified the order of the court and altered the suit property and thus committed the contempt to the detriment of the otherside. In view of the decision in Haris Uppal case reported in 2003 (2) sec 45 and Mahipal Singh Rava’s case reported in (2016) 8 SCC 335, she cannot be allowed to practice. viii. The complainant has marked the colour photographs 15 in number to show as to how she has misbehaved with him and his rights. The first photograph would reveal that she was wearing a Dhoti or Towel and demolishing stone blockade in the disputed pathway. Next four photographs are really shocking as they exhibit a picture that she was standing in the midst of fire flame, watching the destruction caused by the fire to the property in dispute.

ix. Like that other photographs would also reveal the destruction caused by her.

x. The last photograph would clearly reveal that her husband claiming to be an Advocate, is running People Legal Rights Organisation in Kanyakumari District in No.273/2015. The fifth photograph particularly is in support of her own statement at para 10 of her counter and in that para she has admitted the removal of stone blockade inspite of the statusquo order with the help of the Police.

xi. We cannot simply brush aside the terrified and fearful attitude of the Respondent Advocate as revealed through the photographs. Her way of standing in the midst of flame and her bold and fearless attitude in the property in dispute would no doubt make us to say that she can be easily identified with Mahakavi Bharathiyar’s dream woman.

11

xii. But, the question is was it the dream of Mahakavi Bharathiyar about a woman and would Mahakavi permit a woman to take law in her hands, firing the property of her opposite party, inspite of the Statusquo order?. The answer is in the negative. xiii. Probably, the Respondent woman advocate would have tried to test the words of Mahakavi Bharathiyar by standing in the flame of fire to findout whether she could be able to attain the pleasure of touching “Nandhalala”, as Mahakavi Bharathiyar sung that he would attain the pleasure of touching “Nandhalala” while touching the fire. But, unfortunately she tested the same with the fire set by her on other’s property and hence, we are inclined to hold that she has attained disqualification by resorting to such a cruel misconduct. xiv. The Respondent running so many business concerns, rebellious Organisation is proved to be spoiling the peaceful atmosphere of the locality by creating a total threat to the common people in and around her locality. This is nothing but a serious misconduct within meaning a sec 35 (1) of the Advocates Act, 1961. Hence, we give liberty to the complainant to come out with such a complaint against the Respondent Advocate also if he is so advised.

xv. However, this being the Enrolment Committee we stop ourselves with a finding that she has been running so many business concerns, along with her husband, who also has decorated his name with a law degree though admittedly not completed law degree. xvi. She has been running an Organisation called People Legal Rights Origanisation, Register No.273/2015 within a year from the date of her enrolment and thus she has attained total disqualification to practice as an advocate in view of Rules 47 to 52 of Sec VII of part VI and chapter II and Rule 2 Chapter III of the Bar Council of India Rules. xvii. That apart in view of her own admission violating the statusquo order also, she has to be declared disqualified.

12 xviii. Further, in view of the Hon’ble Full Bench Judgment in 2017 (5) CTC 113, there are criminal cases pending against her, the imprisonment for which is more than three years and in view of the Hon’ble Full Bench Judgment reported in 2017 (5) CTC P1 113 also she should not be allowed to practice. In fine we hold that:-

(i) The Respondent Advocate while working was undergoing the law course in a place which is thousand kilometers away from the her place of working. Hence, she could not have attended the regular classes as evidenced from the Payment Register Form June 2012 onwards marked by the Complainant and the unquestionable notarised affidavit filed by the Former Correspondent of the relevant period.

(ii) That she has suppressed her previous employment column is 11 (a) and (b) of her Enrolment Application by saying monosyllabic answer ‘NO’ to the questions in that column which are reproduced below:- 11 (a) Have you ever been in any employment? (If so, state when and N/A where you were employed and the nature of such employment if you have ceased to be employed specify the date of ending of service and the reason for such ending full particular of all employment and relieving orders up to the ending of service should be given)

11 (b) Have you any interest as a partner or otherwise in any business, N/A trade or calling? (Give full particulars)

(iii) That she even after her Enrolment, worked in the school upto December 2017 and even as on date she has been running so many concerns in the name of National e.Governance Plan, Common Service Centers Scheme, Department of Information Technology, Government of India, J.M.Aluminum Fabrication, Interior Decoration, PVC Doors, The Xerox, DTP works, Lamination and Spiral binding shops and there by violated Rules 47 to 52 of Sec.VII of Part VI of Chapter II and also Rule 2 of Chapter III of the Bar Council of India Rules as proved from the board installed by her and the photographs filed by the complainant.

(iv) That in her own admission at para 10 of her counter, she has violated the Court order of Statusquo and taken possession of the property in dispute by demolishing the stone blockade and setting fire of her rival’s place.

13

(v) That there are criminal cases warranting punishment of more than three years pending against her, subsequent to her enrolment.

(vi) In view of the Hon’ble Full Bench Judgment in 2017 (5) CTC 113 she is a leader of Legal Wing of People Legal Rights Organisation along with her husband namely Mr.A.Jeyasingh who is a District Organiser of the said Organisation and others, which has created peaceless atmosphere in the locality. If she is allowed to practice even for one day it will be a total disrespect to the nobility and dignity of Legal Profession and sincere Lawyers. Moreover she will go down to any level to tamper with the Court records and the pending cases against her, if she is allowed to practice pending proceedings under sec.26 (1) and 26 (2) of the Advocates Act, 1961.

(vii) The complainant is given liberty to lodge a complaint under sec. 35 (1) of the Advocates Act, 1961 also pending the proceedings before the Bar Council of India under sec.26 (1) and 26 (2) of the Advocates Act, 1961

(viii) Hence, we have no other opinion except to pass an order of interim suspension of practice in any Courts, Tribunal throughout the territory of India pending our recommendation for removal permanently from the rolls of Bar Council of India under the proviso to 26 (1) of the Advocates Act, 1961 and sec. 26 (2) of the Advocates Act, 1961 also.

(ix) With this, we hold that the complaint placed before this Committee stands allowed, with the cost of Rs.50,000/- against the Respondent Advocate and she is directed to pay the same within two weeks from the receipt of the order of the Bar Council of TamilNadu and Puducherry, to the Bar Council of TamilNadu and Puducherry.

Sd/-xxxxxx Sd/-xxxxxx (R.SINGARAVELAN) (N.CHANDRASEKHARAN) Senior Advocate Member Member