HC reserves order on Ashok Arora’s plea challenging his suspension as Secretary of SCBA

The Delhi High Court in Ashok Arora v. SCBA reserved its order in the case of suspension of Ashok Arora as the Secretary of the Supreme Court Bar Association.

Petitioner’s Contention

Mr. Ashok Arora challenged his suspension from the post of secretary wherein he contended that his ejection was void from the very beginning citing Rule 35 of the Supreme Court Bar Association Rules. Rule 35 of the SCBA rules provide for the complaints regarding the member and the meeting conducted thereafter and further states, “The Committee or the Sub-Committee constituted by it generally for the purpose of this rule or especially for any particular case will hold an inquiry into the complaint. If on consideration of its own findings or of the Report of SubCommittee, the Committee is satisfied that there is a prima facie case against the Member complained against it shall direct that the Complaint together with the report of the Committee or Sub-Committee be placed before a General Meeting of the Association. Provided always that where a prima facie case is made out against the Member complained the Committee or SubCommittee shall give such Member reasonable opportunity of being heard in person. ” Mr. Arora however contended that the procedure to remove him as the secretary was devoid of principles of natural justice and lacked a proper inquiry. Arora even requested a stay on the suspension as interim relief.

Respondent’s Contention

The Counsel for SCBA contended that the reliance on Rule 35 of SCBA Rules lacked appropriate reasoning as it only dealt with the issue of removal of members. He further stated that there was a dearth of law that dealt with the issue of ‘misbehavior’ by the elected members. Reliance was made upon Rule 14 of SCBA rules which gave the President the power to decide on issues pertaining to the subjects that did not find a place in the by-laws. The Counsel even cited previous instances where such suspension took place. There was no hindrance to the principle of natural justice since Arora was given a chance to present his views. Furthermore, the petitioner should not be granted interim relief as he failed to make out a prima facie case under Order 39 CPC.

Conclusion

Even the Bar council of India presented its arguments to put a stay on the suspension of Arora stating that it had the power to regulate the conduct of advocates, however, the respondents contended that BCI had no role to play in the functioning of private associations like SCBA.

The Judgement of the case has been reserved and shall be pronounced by Honble Justice Mukta Gupta.