V. Ramasubramanian, J.

The petitioners have come up with the above writ petitions challenging (i) an order issued by the Chairman of the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and puducherry, prohibiting them from practising as Advocates in any Court until the conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings and also (ii) the initiation of disciplinary proceedings.

2. We have heard Ms. R.Vaigai, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in four writ petitions, Mr. K.M. Ramesh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in two writ petitions and Mr. T. Velumani, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in the seventh writ petition. We have also heard Mr. R. Singaravelan, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent State Bar Council, Mr. Vijay Narayan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the second respondent and Mr. S.R. Rajagopal, learned counsel appearing for the third respondent.

3. On 20.11.2015, a Senior Commandant of the CISF gave a complaint in writing to the Registrar General of this Court. As per the complaint, the petitioners herein as well as two other Advocates by name M/s. Muthuramalingam and Antony indulged in unruly conduct, intimidation, obstruction, wrongful restraint of the CISF personnel, destruction of public property using unparliamentary and filthy language. By a separate communication dated 20.11.2015, the Senior Commandant of the CISF submitted before the Registrar General, a copy of the complaint given by a lady Sub Inspector belonging to the CISF by name Rati Verma.

4. Simultaneously, a complaint was also lodged at the instance of the Senior Commandant, with the Flower Bazaar Police, in Crime No. 32 of 2015, for alleged offences under Sections 143, 186, 188, 189, 294, 341, 353, 506(i), 509, IPC read with Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Public Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992, against all the petitioners herein and the other two advocates.

5. On 22.11.2015, the Chairman of the Bar Council of India, who is the fourth respondent herein, passed an order directing the Tamil Nadu Bar Council to take stringent action against the petitioners as well as two other advocates. He directed the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu to initiate disciplinary proceedings and to conclude the same within eight weeks. This order was communicated by the Joint Secretary of the Bar Council of India to the Secretary of the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu on 23.11.2015.

6. Simultaneously, the Registrar-General of this Court also sent a letter dated 24.11.2015 to the Chairman of the State Bar Council, forwarding the complaint given by the lady Sub Inspector of Police.

7. Pursuant to the above, the Chairman of the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu, who is impleaded by name as the second respondent in these writ petitions, passed an order prohibiting the petitioners herein from practising as advocates in any Court of law, either in their names or in any assumed names pending disposal of the disciplinary proceedings. Thereafter, the petitioners herein received a notice dated 07.12.2015 from the Registrar of the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council, calling upon the petitioners to appear for an enquiry before the Disciplinary Committee on 12.12.2015.

8. It appears that the petitioners appeared before the Disciplinary Committee of the State Bar Council on 12.12.2015. Before the Disciplinary Committee, the petitioners filed applications seeking revocation of the prohibition imposed upon them. It appears that these applications were numbered as interlocutory applications and they were taken up by the Disciplinary Committee for hearing and were also heard. But, suddenly, one Member of the three Member Disciplinary Committee resigned his membership on 30.12.2015. Therefore, the applications were postponed to 02.01.2016.

9. In the meantime, the Chairman of the Bar Council of India passed an order dated 31.12.2015 transferring the enquiry from the file of the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu to the Disciplinary Committee of