In the present Petition, Senior Advocate Ashok Arora challenged an Order passed by a Single Judge bench. The Order held that Mr Arora had failed to make out any prima facie case against his favour to stay his suspension. The Bench considered this issue, in the present case of Ashok Arora v.Supreme Court Bar Association and Anr.
Facts of the Case
The Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) suspended its Secretary Ashok Arora (Appellant) on May 8th 2020. The suspension came a day after Arora had called an Emergent General Meeting (EGM) of the lawyers’ body on May 11th 2020, to discuss the agenda to remove Senior Advocate Dushyant Dave from the post of President. Arora had alleged that Dave used the office of SCBA for political purposes. But the Executive Committee (EC) cancelled the proposed EGM. And decided to set up a three-member panel to look into the allegations against the Appellant.
After which, the Appellant moved to the High Court of Delhi, in order to stay on his suspension from SCBA. But the Court refused to stay the removal of Ashok Arora from the post of Secretary on October 6th 2020.
Appellant’s Argument
The Appellant Mr Ashok Arora contended that Rule 35 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) alone dealt with the suspension of membership. And according to Rule 14 of CPC, the General Body could suspend membership and not just one office-bearer. Since the President having been elected, claimed immunity from suspension, by the same logic the Appellant could not be removed from the office to which he had been elected.
Respondent’s Argument
Mr Arvind Nigam appeared for the SCBA. He contended that the impugned order passed by the Single Judge did not call for any interference. This was because the President under Rule 14 of the SCBA Rules was the repository of all residuary powers. Hence, he could decide on any matter not provided under the Rules such as the suspension of an elected member of the Executive Committee. Hence the reliance of the Appellant on Rule 35 was irrelevant.
Court’s Order
The Division Bench of Justice Rajiv Sahai Endlaw and Asha Menon did not find any reason to interfere with the earlier order passed by the Single Bench.
For the original order of the case, click here
Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgment from courts. Follow us on Google News, Instagram, LinkedIn, Facebook & Twitter. You can subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.
