- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
Delhi HC issues summons to SCBA, BCI over suspension of SCBA Secretary Ashok Arora
The Delhi High Court has sought response from the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) and the Bar Council of India (BCI) on a petition against the suspension of SCBA Secretary Ashok Arora.A single judge bench of Justice Mukta Gupta issued summons in the suit and notice on the application filed by Arora seeking to stay the resolution passed by the SCBA’s Executive Committee. The matter has...
ToRead the Full Story, Subscribe to
Access the exclusive LEGAL ERAStories,Editorial and Expert Opinion
The Delhi High Court has sought response from the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) and the Bar Council of India (BCI) on a petition against the suspension of SCBA Secretary Ashok Arora.
A single judge bench of Justice Mukta Gupta issued summons in the suit and notice on the application filed by Arora seeking to stay the resolution passed by the SCBA’s Executive Committee. The matter has been slated for further hearing on August 6.
Senior advocate Rajiv Nayar and Arvind Nigam represented the SCBA and advocate Rajdipa Behura appeared for the BCI.
In May, the SCBA’s Executive Committee (EC) suspended Arora from its Secretary’s post with immediate effect in a meeting held online. The decision was taken a day after Arora had called an Emergency General Meeting (EGM) of the lawyers’ body on May 11 to deliberate on the removal of senior advocate Dushyant Dave from the post of SCBA President.
The EGM was cancelled by the EC and a three-member panel set up to examine the allegations levelled against Arora, said a senior official of the SCBA. The decision of the EC to suspend Arora was taken by the majority, and Dave abstained from voting.
The friction emerged among the top office-bearers in the SCBA over the statement made by Supreme Court judge Justice Arun Mishra on February 22, praising Prime Minister Narendra Modi at International Judicial Conference-2020.
On February 25, Dave had issued a “resolution”, allegedly signed by several members of the SCBA expressing anguish over Justice Mishra’s statements. Arora had claimed that no resolution was passed, as he did not sign the statement released to the media.
“The SCBA believes that the independence of the judiciary is the basic structure under the Constitution of India and that such independence be preserved in letter and spirit,” the resolution had said.