Serious And Material Irregularities In Conduct Of IOA Elections 2020: Delhi HC Appoints Former Judge As Administrator Of Association
|The Delhi High Court has appointed former Judge i.e., Justice J.R. Midha as the administrator of Indian Orthopaedic Association (IOA) saying that there have been serious and material irregularities in the conduct of IOA Elections 2020.
The Court was deciding a suit filed by some doctors alleging irregularities in the conduct of the aforesaid elections. They were aggrieved with the manner in which the elections were conducted in November 2020, to elect certain office bearers of the Executive Committee of the IOA.
A Single Bench of Justice Sachin Datta held, “… it is, ex-facie, evident that there have been serious and material irregularities in the conduct of IOA elections 2020. … Accordingly, Mr. Justice (Retd.) J. R. Midha, Former Judge of Delhi High Court (Mob. No. - 9717495003) is appointed as the Administrator for the defendant no.7. The Administrator shall conduct the affairs of the defendant no.7 till the executive committee of the defendant no.7 is re-constituted pursuant to the elections slated to be held in November, 2023, upon results of the said elections being officially declared. The affairs of the defendant no.7 shall be conducted by the said Administrator with the aid of the incumbent executive committee.”
Senior Advocate Raman Kapur and Advocates Manish Kumar and Gaurav Duggal represented the plaintiffs while Senior Advocates Malvika Trivedi and Sandeep Sethi and Advocate Aishvary Vikram represented the defendants.
In this case, the prayers sought in the suit were a decree of declaration declaring the entire process of election of IOA and its purported result declared November 22, 2020 to be a nullity; a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from in any manner acting upon the outcome of Elections held and its subsequent declaration of the result, and a direction seeking that an investigation be conducted by an independent agency or a retired judge of the Supreme Court as regards alleged malpractices or irregularities in the conduct of the aforesaid elections. Along with the suit, an application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 of CPC was filed by the plaintiffs seeking, inter-alia, an interim prayer to the effect that the defendants be restrained from holding the Executive Committee meeting for declaring the results of the said elections.
Vide order, the defendants were restrained from holding the emergent meeting of the Executive Committee scheduled to be held for declaration of the results of the said elections. However, vide a judgment, the High Court dismissed the said application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 of CPC thereby making way for official declaration of the results of the elections held in November, 2020. Consequently, the Court dismissed the application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 of CPC. An appeal was filed against the said judgment in 2021 which was also disposed of by the Division Bench of the Court.
The High Court in the above context noted, “Admittedly, the defendant No.4 was elected to the position of Vice-President in the impugned elections in November, 2020, and on that basis became President-elect in the subsequent year, thereafter the President of the defendant No.7. Thus, by virtue of the impugned elections held in November, 2020, the defendant no. 4 is the incumbent President. The defendant No. 5 was elected as the Secretary in the impugned elections for a period of 3 years, which term is yet to expire. The defendant No. 3 who was the Vice-President of defendant No.7 in 2020, and who was the election officer for the elections conducted in November, 2020, is now in the Executive Committee of Defendant No.7 as past President.”
The Court said that given the serious irregularities that ex-facie vitiate the elections held in November 2020, and given that the said elections have had a cascading effect as regards the constitution of the Executive Committee of the IOA, it would be appropriate to appoint an Administrator to conduct affairs of the defendant.
“Such a course is imperative to ensure that the affairs of defendant no. 7 are put in order, and particularly to ensure that appropriate steps are taken to ensure the authenticity of the voters‟ list and setting up of robust electoral mechanism/s, in view of the upcoming elections scheduled to be held in November, 2023”, it further observed.
The Court also ordered that the Administrator shall be paid an interim fees of Rs. 5,00,000/- by the defendant, in addition to reimbursement of expenses incurred and secretarial charges and further directed that the Administrator shall file an interim report within a period of three weeks.
“This Court is constrained to express its anguish at the state of affairs in the Indian Orthopaedic Association (Defendant No.7), which is an association comprising of highly accomplished doctors in the field of orthopaedic surgery. It is unfortunate that an association having such salutary objectives, constituted to serve the public good, and comprising of some of the most renowned medical professionals in the country, has been reduced to its present state of affairs. It is hoped and expected that necessary remedial steps shall be taken by the association”, concluded the Court.
Accordingly, the High Court listed the case for further consideration on December 14, 2023.
Cause Title- Dr. P.V. Vijayaraghavan & Ors. v. Nityam Software Solution Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2023:DHC:7723)