Introduction:
In a dramatic turn of events within the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA), a no-confidence motion has been filed against the current SCBA President, Mr. Kapil Sibal. The motion, spearheaded by a faction of disillusioned members, revolves around the controversy surrounding a resolution passed on August 21, 2024, which they argue was both illegal and unauthorized.
Predecessor President of the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA), Adish C Aggarwala, has asked current President Kapil Sibal to withdraw a controversial resolution passed last week and publicly apologise to members or face a no-confidence motion raised, ANI reported.
The Concern:
Aggarwala alleged that the resolution is “invalid” as it was not officially approved by the SCBA’s Executive Committee. He also accused Sibal of using his position to undermine the gravity of the incident and having a conflict of interest. He noted that since Sibal is representing the West Bengal government in the case, the “purported” SCBA statement exhibits a conflict of interest.
The letter demanded that Sibal should withdraw the resolution and issue a public apology within 72 hours or it could lead to a no-confidence motion against him.
Aggarwala’s letter accuses Sibal of “attempt to undermine the seriousness of the RG Kar Medical College case” which is under serious scrutiny by the Supreme Court of India and the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), the report added.
Aggarwala contends that by mentioning the Chief Justice of India and issuing a purported SCBA resolution, Sibal has not only attempted to influence the apex court and the investigation but has also damaged the credibility and integrity of the SCBA President’s role. “This action has deeply hurt the medical and legal communities and casts a shadow over the SCBA’s reputation,” Aggarwala argued.
The Controversial Resolution:
The resolution in question was adopted at a recent SCBA meeting, which Mr. Sibal presided over. Critics contend that the resolution was enacted without proper procedural adherence and lacked the requisite approval from the majority of the membership. They allege that the resolution was not discussed in accordance with established SCBA protocols and that it undermines the democratic values that the association upholds.
Grounds For No- Confidence Motion:
The no-confidence motion against Mr. Sibal is founded on several key allegations:
-
Violation of Procedural Norms: Opponents argue that the resolution was adopted without following the appropriate procedural channels, thus breaching the SCBA’s own rules and regulations.
-
Lack of Authorization: There are claims that the resolution was not authorized by a majority of the SCBA members, raising questions about its legitimacy and the authority under which it was enacted.
-
Inadequate Consultation: The critics assert that Mr. Sibal did not adequately consult with the broader membership before pushing the resolution forward, leading to feelings of disenfranchisement among members.
-
Impact on SCBA’s Integrity: The resolution’s perceived impact on the SCBA’s governance and its effect on the association’s integrity are major concerns. Members worry that this move could set a dangerous precedent for future decision-making processes.
The Call For Withdrawl and Apology :
In response to the no-confidence motion, the opposition is demanding two specific actions from Mr. Sibal:
-
Withdrawal of the Resolution: The primary demand is for Mr. Sibal to formally withdraw the controversial resolution, thereby nullifying its effects and restoring procedural integrity within the SCBA.
-
Apology to SCBA Members: There is a strong call for Mr. Sibal to issue a formal apology to every member of the SCBA. The apology is seen as a necessary step to mend relations and address the grievances of those who feel their voices were disregarded in the resolution’s adoption.
Mr. Sibal’s Response
As of now, Mr. Sibal has yet to publicly address the no-confidence motion or the demands for withdrawal and apology. His response will be crucial in determining the next steps for the SCBA and in resolving the current crisis within the association.
The Path Forward
The outcome of this no-confidence motion will have significant implications for the SCBA’s future. Should Mr. Sibal comply with the demands, it could pave the way for healing divisions within the association and restore faith in its governance processes. Conversely, if the motion succeeds, it may lead to a leadership change and potentially reshape the SCBA’s approach to decision-making and member engagement.
In the coming days, the SCBA membership and broader legal community will be watching closely to see how this situation unfolds and what it means for the future of the association.