New Delhi: The controversy over former Supreme Court judge Justice Arun Mishra’s encomium offered for Prime Minister Narendra Modi, while delivering the vote of thanks at the inaugural function of the International Judicial Conference on February 22, refuses to die down even after his retirement on September 2. Justice Mishra had then praised Modi as an “internationally acclaimed visionary” and a “versatile genius, who thinks globally and acts locally”.
The Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) on February 25 had passed a resolution expressing anguish and concern over Justice Arun Mishra’s statements. Expressing its strong condemnation of the encomium, the SCBA stated that it believed that the independence of the judiciary is the basic structure under the constitution and that such independence must be preserved in letter and spirit.
Soon after SCBA president Dushyant Dave released the resolution, the SCBA secretary, Ashok Arora, alleged that the SCBA had not passed it, as he did not sign the statement released to the media. Arora claimed that Dave could not have spoken on behalf of the SCBA without calling a general body meeting or meeting of the executive council on such a serious issue.
On May 8, the SCBA’s Executive Committee passed a resolution suspending Arora from the post of the secretary. The suspension came a day after Arora called an emergent general meeting (EGM) of the SCBA on May 11 to deliberate on the agenda for removing Dave from the post of the president. The EC, however, heard Arora, before suspending him. The EC felt that Arora could not have called the Special Meeting of the SCBA without the concurrence of the EC.
Also read: In Deciding Constitutionality of Enactments, Justice Arun Mishra Always Deferred to Centre
The EC also cancelled the EGM, and authorised Dave to nominate three independent persons in consultation with it to enquire into the acts of commission and omission by Arora and place its report for taking necessary action. Dave had recused from the May 8 meeting to avoid conflict of interest. The EC had resolved that joint secretary Rohit Pandey would discharge all functions of the secretary in consultation with Dave.
Meanwhile, the Bar Council of India (BCI) passed a resolution on May 10 “staying” the SCBA’s suspension of Arora, by terming it as illegal, cavalier, undemocratic and autocratic. The BCI did not hear the SCBA before passing the resolution, thus violating the principles of natural justice.
The BCI’s “resolution”, however, is not binding on the SCBA. The SCBA returned the BCI’s resolution stating that the SCBA is an independent institution and the BCI has no jurisdiction or power over it or any other Bar Association in the country.
Dave described the BCI’s resolution as illegal, unauthorised and perverse. The BCI hit back on May 17 issuing show-cause notices to Dave and other office-bearers of SCBA as to why disciplinary action should not be initiated against them under the Advocates Act. On June 5, the SCBA issued a show-cause notice to Arora before referring the allegations against him to a three-member enquiry committee.
This made Arora seek interim relief from the Delhi high court in terms of an injunction on his suspension from the SCBA. He had also sought quashing of the May 8 resolution of SCBA, and implementation of the BCI’s May 10 resolution. His main suit is listed for hearing on November 6. The tenure of the office-bearers of the SCBA lasts till the end of the year.
Also read: Justice Arun Mishra’s Disregard for Precedent Led to Charge of Judicial Indiscipline
On Tuesday, Justice Mukta Gupta of the Delhi high court declined interim relief to Arora on the ground that he had not made a prima facie case in favour of injunction. An injunction can be granted if the plaintiff shows any irreparable loss in lieu of it, and convinces the court that balance of convenience lies in his favour.
In its order on Tuesday, the high court noted that Arora had not impleaded seven members of the EC who had signed the May 8 resolution, and whose acts he had alleged were mala fide.
In its May 8 resolution, the EC had alleged that Arora’s conduct as secretary was exceedingly obstructive and abusive. It accused him of failing in his primary duty of maintaining proper records and minutes of meetings and proceedings of the EC as mandated under the rules.
Also read: As Judge, Arun Mishra Was Almost Predictable When the State Was Before Him
The SCBA alleged that Arora tried to run its affairs by “social media messages and thumbs up responses”. The SCBA also accused Arora of using threatening language and issuing illegal notice to its treasurer, Meenesh Dubey.
Arora also allegedly resorted to highly objectionable, unparliamentary language against Dave and other office-bearers at a lecture delivered by Justice Deepak Gupta (since retired) on February 24. The SCBA alleged that he also obstructed the farewell function for a “highly respected Judge of the Supreme Court” during the lockdown period.
The schism within the SCBA was probably in his mind when Justice Arun Mishra declined its request for a farewell function in his honour, though he attributed it to the need for social distancing to fight coronavirus.