How internal conflicts threaten harmony of prestigious Sirsa Club

Sirsa Club, a prestigious social institution established in 1964 to promote cultural activities and community bonding, has been embroiled in an unprecedented dispute.

For over five decades, the club operated on mutual understanding, tradition and social respect, with minimal electoral contests. However, recent elections have exposed underlying tensions among senior office-bearers, leading to allegations of unconstitutional practices and misuse of authority. The conflict has reached the High Court, challenging the club’s foundational ethos of cooperation and collective decision-making. Members fear that the dispute threatens the club’s reputation and original purpose.

What sparked the current dispute at Sirsa Club?

The controversy began when a group of office-bearers alleged that the ongoing election process was unconstitutional. They claimed club secretary Rajesh Goyal, aka Lala, admitted 87 new members without approval from the General Body. Further, he reportedly declared election dates and appointed an election officer without convening a proper meeting. The group believes these actions violate the club’s constitution and undermine transparency, prompting them to file a petition in the High Court, with a hearing scheduled for November 27.

How did office-bearers attempt to resolve the issue internally?

The aggrieved members first approached the Sirsa Deputy Commissioner, who is also the club president, seeking corrective action. The DC reportedly directed the registrar to investigate the matter. Despite repeated visits and attempts to contact Registrar Gaurav Sharma, who oversees three districts, no concrete action followed. Frustrated by this inaction and fearing that elections conducted under such conditions could later be legally challenged, the members concluded that the only remaining option was to escalate the matter to the judiciary.

What are the main concerns of the protesting members?

The members stressed that Sirsa Club was created for recreation, social bonding and community service, where all members should enjoy equal rights. They accused the secretary of treating the club as personal property, bypassing collective decision-making and disregarding transparency in the election process. They worry that unchecked competition and personal interests are replacing the club’s traditional values of harmony and mutual respect. For them, elections should strengthen the institution, not erode its principles or damage its reputation.

How has the secretary responded to allegations?

Club secretary Rajesh Goyal has defended the election process, asserting that it complies with existing rules. He stated that an ad-hoc committee was formed to oversee the elections and denied allegations as baseless. He maintained that the process is fair, transparent and in line with the club’s constitution. The secretary’s stance reflects a firm belief in procedural correctness, contrasting with the members’ argument that the process ignored long-standing social norms and collective decision-making traditions.

What is the broader significance of the dispute for Sirsa Club?

The conflict highlights the tension between tradition and formalised procedures in a historically cooperative institution. Members stress that the club’s value lies not in its buildings, positions or facilities, but in the social harmony and service it fosters. Observers hope the High Court proceedings can serve as an opportunity for introspection, encouraging dialogue and compromise among office-bearers. If the dispute is resolved amicably, original spirit of the club could be restored.