Delhi High Court Reserves Order On Ashok Arora Suspension From SCBA Case

The Executive Committee of the SCBA had passed a resolution on May 8, suspending Arora from the post of secretary with immediate effect in a meeting held through an online conference.

Adv Arun Batta, appearing for Ashok Arora, stated that his removal was vindictive as he has refused to be a mere "rubber stamp" for the body.

Arora argued before the High Court that, "There is no rule for suspension of elected members. Rule 35 is the only rule that can be invoked and it applies to any member of SCBA," and that the SCBA did not follow the requisite procedure in suspending him – having first suspended him and then issuing him a show-cause notice.

He further stated that the interested parties themselves became the jurors of his suspension from the SCBA – with all 7 members of the committee also being members of the Executive Committee, thereby being a judge of their own case.

Pointing out violations of "principles of natural justice," he said that the Vice President had participated in the committee proceedings against him when even though he had raised allegations against him as well.

Raising allegations against the SCBA President Dushyant Dave, Arora stated that, "Even though Dushyant Dave didn't participate, he constituted the committee that suspended me from SCBA." He further went on to allege that, "(A) majority of the SCBA members (had) sold their soul and simply toed the line of President Dushyant Dave."

Appearing on behalf of the Bar Council of India (which had, in what Arora called a "historic move" stated that Arora's suspension from the post of Secretary was vindictive), Adv Preet Pal Singh stated that till date the BCI has never interfered in such matters however this situation was unprecedented and called for an intervention. What was asked from Your Lordship was what is the solution to all this? BCI also never interfered in all this because this was a decision to be taken by the General Body.

Referring to a judgment by the Supreme Court which states that Bar Association is also nothing but a body of advocates, he submitted that the Supreme Court itself had observed that all Bar Associations are also controlled by the BCI, because in the absence of this control, Bar Associations could take any action contrary to BCI's decisions.

Appearing for the Supreme Court Bar Association, Adv Arvind Nigam, on the other hand submitted that, suspension from the primary membership of the Association and suspension as an elected representative are two different things and that Rule 35 of the Supreme Court Bar Association Rules does not apply to the case at hand, as the show cause notice issued to Arora was not for expulsion from the membership of the Association.

Stating that Rule 14(2) was the source of residuary power, he added that earlier too action has been initiated against the elected representatives of the Association.

He further went on to state that prior to approaching the High Court, Arora had also approached the Supreme Court. However, when it was brought to the notice of this court that a case was already pending the Supreme Court he stated that an application for withdrawal had already been filed regarding the same. With respect to this, Adv Nigam stated that while the Supreme Court order noted that the case was being withdrawn as Arora was going to approach the High Court, this was at variance with his stance in the withdrawal application which stated that he wanted to approach the Committee of Justice Ramamurthy, Justice Sodhi and Justice Marlapalley, which was constituted on 8th June.

Adv Nigam argued that the written pleading of the withdrawal application constituted a subsuming of the cause of action, and that this was a case of abandonment of the cause of action.

At this, Justice Endlaw questioned as to who had constituted this Committee, in response to which Adv Batta, appearing for Arora intervened and said that this Committee had been constituted not by the Executive Committee but by the President himself.

Adv Nigam for SCBA also submitted that none of the people whom Arora had alleged mala fide against had been made parties to the plaint.

Arora briefly replied to the arguments of the SCBA, stating that, he was "not claiming any personal right," but was fighting "for the wrong to the SCBA" and that Rule 14 of the SCBA Rules could not be used to demolish the basic rule of democracy. He submitted that, he was pleading on principles of natural justice, as in his case the very people who were the complainant had also become the judge – and that the BCI had also noted that this had been happening almost every year.

Adv Arvind Nigam responded to this stating that, "It's not as if any provision of the Act gives any power to the BCI of supervision of the Associations."