Synopsis: Arora challenged his removal from the post of Executive Committee Secretary, SCBA.
The Delhi High Court today put an end to Ashok Arora’s suit against the Supreme Court Bar Association in connection with his removal as its Secretary, stating that a divided bar weakens the Bench.
The Single Judge Bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher, said that it affects the Bench equally if the Bar is divided.
After hearing Arora, Senior Advocate Arvind Nigam for the SCBA and President Dushyant Dave of the SCBA, Justice Shakdher stated that he intended to close the proceedings in the present case in the best interest of camaraderie and to ensure that the institution’s prestige is preserved.
Following the intervention of Justice Shakdher, SCBA accepted that it would not take forward the minutes of the meeting of the Executive Committee of May 8, in which it was decided to suspend Arora from the position of Secretary, SCBA.
Since his term has ended, Arora said he would not participate in the Executive Committee proceedings.
The Court also found out that the SCBA and Arora would not press their respective positions on the suspension issue and that Arora would drop all legal proceedings brought by him in connection with his suspension.
The Court added that in the case in which Arora wanted to challenge the upcoming SCBA elections, the suspension order did not come in its own way.
Today the matter was heard in two shifts. After Justice Shakdher suggested that the matter be resolved between the parties today, Senior Advocate Nigam was asked in the post-lunch session to come back with instructions.
Dave explained during the course of the hearing that SCBA had nothing against Arora, while Arora argued that he was fighting for dignity and not the post.
Following Arora’s call for an Emergent General Meeting to remove Dave from the post of President of the SCBA, Arora was immediately suspended from the post of Secretary by the Executive Council of the Association.
In October, Justice Mukta Gupta declined to grant Arora interim relief from the stay. She held that Arora had not made any prima facie case for the grant of an injunction in his favour.
Subsequently, the order was upheld by the High Court’s Division Bench after Arora preferred an appeal.