Delhi HC reserves order in Ashok Arora's plea to stay his removal from the post of Secretary, SCBA

The Delhi High Court today reserved order on grant of interim relief to Adv Ashok Arora in his suit against his removal from the post of Secretary, Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA). (Ashok Arora vs SCBA).As an interim measure, Arora has sought a stay on the resolution removing from the post of Secretary, SCBA..Order was reserved by a Single Judge Bench of Justice Mukta Gupta after hearing Arora and counsel for Bar Council of India and SCBA. .It is Arora's case that his ouster was void ab initio, as it was in violation of Rule 35 of the SCBA Rules. .Arora argued that as per Rule 35, the power to suspend or expel a member rested with the General House of SCBA and same had to be decided after an inquiry into a complaint of misconduct is carried out by a committee..He alleged that his removal by the Executive Committee of SCBA was in violation of principles of natural justice. .Is mediation by a retired Supreme Court judge acceptable? Delhi HC asks Ashok Arora, SCBA.Appearing for SCBA, Senior Advocate Arvind Nigam responded that the reliance on Rule 35 was misplaced as it only dealt with the issue of removal of a member. .Claiming that there was a vacuum in the SCBA Rules with respect to elected members who "misbehave", Nigam informed the Court that the meeting of the Executive Committee was called by the President under Rule 14 of SCBA Rules. .He added that there were past precedents on the practice of suspending elected members from SCBA posts..Nigam also argued that all principles of natural justice were followed in the meeting of the Executive Committee as not only did the President recuse from the deliberations, Arora was also given the chance to present his views and counter-views. .It was further contended that in view of the "unconditional withdrawal" of the writ petition before the Supreme Court by Arora, he was now barred from agitating the same cause of action. .The Court was also informed that the issue of removal was also pending before a Committee of three retired judges which was constituted in June..Nigam opposed the grant of any stay on the decision to remove Arora from the post Secretary SCBA on the ground that Arora had failed to make out a prima facie case in terms of Order 39 CPC. .Today, Bar Council of India also defended its Resolution staying the removal of Arora. .Relying on Section 7 of the Advocates Act and the Supreme Court's judgement in Harish Uppal, Advocate Rajdip Behura said that Bar Council of India had requisite powers to regulate the conduct of advocates. .Rebutting the assertion, Nigam argued that Bar Council of India had no power to interfere in the internal management affairs of a private association like SCBA. .He stated that as per Section 7 of the Advocates Act and the Supreme Court's judgement in Harish Uppal, the power to exercise jurisdiction over advocates was vis a vis conduct which impinged upon the court work. .Following Arora's call for an Emergent General Meeting to remove Senior Advocate Dushyant Dave from the post of SCBA President, the Executive Council of SCBA had suspended Arora from the position of the Secretary with immediate effect..Bar Council of India (BCI) subsequently stayed the resolution passed by the Executive Committee (EC) of the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) by which Advocate Ashok Arora was suspended from the post of Secretary..The term of present SCBA ends on December 10..Read the complete account of the proceedings here: