One must understand that the date of birth of General V.K. Singh as mentioned in his matriculation certificate has not been challenged at any stage or by any party whatsoever. Secondly, the Legal Advisor of the Ministry of Defence has submitted the entire investigation report which was duly approved by the Ministry of Law & Justice holding the Date of Birth of General V.K. Singh as 10 May 1951, as stands recorded in his matriculation certificate. Thirdly, an opinion of a Senior Law Assistant in the Ministry of Law & Justice i.e. Attorney-General, cannot change or reverse the legitimate findings of the Legal Advisor of the Ministry of Defence which were duly accepted by the Ministry of Law & Justice and approved by the Ministry of Defence. – Sr. Advocate Bhim Singh
An undesirable and unhealthy controversy relating to the date of birth of four-star General Vijay Kumar Singh has flooded the media and upset the public, thanks to the games played by the higher echelons of power in the South and North Blocks. The Supreme Court had an opportunity to address this issue of massive public interest, but failed to act in accordance with the principles laid down in its judgments vis-à-vis Public Interest Litigation.
A Division Bench headed by the Chief Justice of India was carried more by its anger than logic while hearing a Public Interest Litigation filed by Grenadiers Association, Rohtak, an NGO, and did not address a national issue regarding the legitimacy of the decision of the Ministry of Law & Justice which clearly held that record of service on the date of birth of Army Chief General V.K. Singh shall be read as 10 May 1951. This record of service notification was issued by the Adjutant General’s Branch dated 25 Feb 2011, which was reversed by a branch of the defence Ministry with mala-fide intention and ulterior motives.
Former Chief Justice J.S. Verma while giving his opinion precisely stated that the date of birth of General V.K. Singh has to be read as is mentioned in his school-leaving certificate (matriculation) which is 10 May 1951. Interestingly, there has been no challenge to the authenticity of his date of birth mentioned in his matriculation certificate. The former Chief Justice had given his opinion on an official request by the Adjutant General’s Branch of Army Headquarters. His ‘considered’ opinion was ignored by the Defence Ministry and silenced by the judgment of the Supreme Court, which said it shall not entertain any petition if it carries the opinion of a retired Judge of the Supreme Court.
An angry Chief Justice, while presiding over three judge bench, refused to even hear the mentioning of opinion of a former CJI. The four former Chief Justices who had given their opinion on the General’s date of birth had stated categorically that Gen V.K. Singh’s DoB stands as 10 May 1951 as mentioned in his school certificate.
Justice Verma in his introductory remarks has observed that, “Any controversy about the Army Chief’s DOB is not in the interest of the nation as also the morale of the Army.”
He concluded that, “The other contextual observation is of greater national significance. In the prevailing environment of a crusade against corruption, supported by the Union Govt. with the Prime Minister repeatedly promising ‘Zero Tolerance’ to corruption, any injustice done to a high public functionary whose public image according to media reports is of combating corruption, is bound to erode the sincerity of this promise. Recent media reports give this impression of Army Chief, General V.K. Singh, for not sparing even the highest in the Armed Forces of their involvement in the Housing and Land Scams. I am afraid edging out such an Army Chief before the end of his legitimate tenure on this pretext may give the public impression of silencing the voice of an ‘inconvenient truth’. That would be unfortunate and detrimental to the national interest. I do hope this does not happen.”
The other former Chief Justices, namely, Mr. Justice R.C. Lahoti, Mr. Justice G.B. Pattnaik and Mr. Justice V.N. Khare, in their respective legal opinions firmly stood on the ground that the matriculation certificate has to be the foundation of proof of date of birth. The important issue involved in the entire episode deserves the attention of law-makers, jurists, and intellectuals in the country.
Can a Department of the Union Government, such as the Ministry of Defence, change, modify or reverse the decision taken by another Ministry of the Union? This very important issue shall answer questions raised in hundreds of thousands of words scripted in leading journals, newspapers by galaxies of noted writers and editors in their continuous tirade to justify the wrong on the front pages of their respective newspapers.
Just one look at the most relevant documents answers all questions on the subject. The opinion of the Legal Advisor of the Ministry of Defence has been systematically ignored by the Ministry. The Legal Advisor submitted a two-page report which was drafted for the reply of an RTI application under section 6, with regard to the date of birth of General V.K. Singh and other Lt. Generals. The Legal Advisor in his findings submitted to the Ministry on 14 February2011 came to the conclusion that:
– Identity Card issued by IMA in June 1970 at the time of Commissioning and thereafter records date of birth as 10 May 1951
– As per 10th Class School Certificate, Rajasthan Board, date of birth is 10 May 1951
– All ACRs and course reports maintain date of birth as 10 May 1951
– Medical Examination since first examination before entering NDA and thereafter also lists date of birth as 10 May 1951
– As per documents maintained by MP-5 and IMA, the date of birth is recorded as 10 May 1951
– The Legal Advisor in this report further verified that, “We have examined the matter and perused the relevant records. We have also perused decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of MP vs. Mohan Lal Sharma (2002) 7 SCC 719 wherein it has been held that Date of Birth recorded in Matriculation Certificate, held, carries a greater evidential value than that contained in a certificate given by the retired Head Master of the School or in the Horoscope.”
– The Legal Advisor concluded his report thus , “It is evident that the officer was issued an Identity Card by Indian Ministry Academy in 1970 at the time of his passing out, is having a DOB as 10.05.1951. Further, all the CRs, Course Reports and the documents maintained by the Manpower Planning (Official Custodian of Officers Record), the DOB is recorded as 10.05.1951. There is overwhelming evidence on record to show that the DOB of the Officer is 10.05.1951 and the only entry against it is the form filled up at the time of applying for NDA. Such an entry is to be treated as an aberration and credence is to be accorded to the DOB recorded in High School Certificate issued by the Rajasthan Board.”
Those raising an alarm on the issue may have a look at the findings of the Legal Advisor of the Ministry of Defence and understand that they were accepted by the Ministry of Law & Justice after due consideration and application of mind. The Adjutant General’s Branch in their official notification dated 25 Feb 2011, addressed to the Ministry of Defence as signed by Maj. General S.C. Nair, ADG, MP, directed the Ministry to perfect their record of service of General V.K. Singh with a clear direction that, “Date of birth shall be recorded as 10 May 1951 as has been recorded in his High School Certificate (Rajasthan Board), which is in conformity with all records maintained by the AG Branch.”
The controversy was compounded into travesty when the Ministry of Defence issued an office memorandum on 21 July 2011 with ulterior motive, least realizing the gravity of the entire situation, by reversing the findings of the Legal Advisor of the Ministry of Defence which were duly accepted by the Ministry of Law & Justice, only to outclass a visionary general.
An opinion was sponsored through the Attorney-General of India, a Senior Law Assistant of the Union of India. He failed to impress public opinion on the subject. He took an excuse to justify his opinion that AG Branch had not provided full facts before the Legal Advisor of the Ministry of Defence; this was contradicted by the Legal Advisor who said he had consulted the entire record in detail before formulating the legal advice to the Ministry.
Secondly, the Attorney-General concocted another excuse of ‘wolf & lamb’ story, claiming that reference as mentioned above dated 14 Feb 2011 was not rooted through Administrative Ministry, which was rebutted heavily in the legal advice itself.
The third excuse the Attorney-General found was that the Legal Advisor of the Ministry of Defence had not sought approval of the Law Secretary and the Law Minister! It is important to mention here that the findings of the Legal Advisor were accepted by the Ministry of Law & Justice (as stated above) and that fact was admitted in the notification of 14 Feb 2011.
It is pertinent that the memorandum of 21 July 2011 was issued by the Joint Secretary to the Govt. of India without any approval or mentioning of approval by the Cabinet Secretary. In such a situation, there was disagreement on the issue between the Ministry of Law & Justice and the Ministry of Defence on 25 Feb 2011 on the issue of date of birth.
The entire exercise to evolve a strategy through a memorandum was made only to reduce the DOB of General V.K. Singh from 10 May 1951 to 10 May 1950. The concluding remarks in the memorandum of the Ministry of Defence in which vested interests have tried to gain their point by illegal, unconstitutional and mala fide means stand exposed.
It said, “The Central Government therefore declares Order No. 12918/RTI/MP-6(a) dated February 25, 2011 directing to amend the date of birth of General V.K. Singh (IC-24173), COAS to read as May 10, 1951 instead of May 10, 1950 as recorded, as null and void and non est. The officer’s official date of birth will continue to be maintained as May 10, 1950 (10th May Nineteen Hundred Fifty).”
Wherefrom was this authoritarian power to declare a notification of the Ministry of Law & Justice as null and void drawn? Is it not a dangerous precedent in the history of the world’s largest democracy? If four-star Generals can be treated this way, what will happen to the fundamental rights of the wretched of the earth?
One must understand that the date of birth of General V.K. Singh as mentioned in his matriculation certificate has not been challenged at any stage or by any party whatsoever. Secondly, the Legal Advisor of the Ministry of Defence has submitted the entire investigation report which was duly approved by the Ministry of Law & Justice holding the Date of Birth of General V.K. Singh as 10 May 1951, as stands recorded in his matriculation certificate.
Thirdly, an opinion of a Senior Law Assistant in the Ministry of Law & Justice i.e. Attorney-General, cannot change or reverse the legitimate findings of the Legal Advisor of the Ministry of Defence which were duly accepted by the Ministry of Law & Justice and approved by the Ministry of Defence.
The important question of law which has to be answered by the Supreme Court of India when the writ petition filed by Gen V.K. Singh comes up for hearing, will pertain to the decision by the Chief Justice of India that the Supreme Court shall not entertain any opinion of retired judges even if sought by a lawful agency.
Does that mean that an opinion of the Attorney General, a senior law officer of the Department of Law, shall be binding on the Government and the Courts? As mentioned in his considered opinion, former Chief Justice J.S. Verma is perfectly right when he opined on validity of the report of the Legal Advisor of the Ministry of Defence that,
“I have reached the conclusion that the above opinion dated 14.02.2011 reiterating that the correct DOB of General V.K. Singh is 10 May 1951 as per the authentic service records is sound and there is no occasion now to change it to an earlier date.”
Let everyone judge for himself/herself as to who is right and who is wrong.
» The author is a Sr. Advocate, Supreme Court of India & Member, National Integration Council. He represented the Grenadiers Association in its PIL on the subject, which was dismissed by the Supreme Court so as not to prejudice the petition of the Army Chief
Filed under: india | Tagged: bhim singh, chief justice of india, india, indian army, indian army chief, indian politics, ministry of defence, politics, ulterior motives, v.k. singh |
BHARATA BHARATI 
Thank you for your comments. Please share your comments on my blogs also. You can communicate directly with me at raviforjustice@gmail.com. Incidently I am NOT law qualified! It is all common sense and grass roots experience!
LikeLike
@P M Ravindran,
Thanks for your enlightening work and reference. It is a long document in your both links. I have copied pasted it for my later convenient reading but I did go through its initial part. I agree with your every statement including the petition. I shall need to read the petition more before I finally sign it since it wants comments also.
Unlike you I am not actively involved in the practice of law, though I did attend the Law College at Advani sometime back. I feel and agree with you in toto that the biggest legal offenders are the lawyers themselves; as the old saying goes, “A wrestler dies in the ring and a swimmer dies in the water”. Both of them become careless, so are the lawyers. Their knowledge makes them fearless offenders.
Since you are so much involved in the legal system and signing a petition for judicial reforms, “I ask a stupid question, do we need such a lengthy bag of written statutes”? If you say yes, then why the need for these multiple judges benches of two, three, five, seven judges in one case to interpret the same case proceedings? Where should be the ambiguity despite the long exhaustive printed constitution to call for such long benches? Why so many amendments, reversal of various orders in different legal courts. They still keep siting the English case laws, why? One could debate it at length. I feel that it is playing with the Aam Aadmi’s ignorance. It appears a sheer stupidity and waste of ‘intellignce property’. It also has its secondary effect of bondage of slavery to the book like any other scriptures that becomes non-negotiable. Cf the comments of the judge in the case of Nathuram Godse! It should satisfy you. After hearing him, “He said that had I been a jury, I would have exonerated you. But I am a judge, bound by the law”?
Constitution of India in its present replica of the British module has converted the current race into a walking-talking robot who has lost his sense of personal intelligence to exercise. This is a sign of permanent slavery as also testified by Malcolm Muggeridge. I give an example. Why should an American or British trained lawyer without proper legal registration in the Indian Bar Council should be taken for granted to plead a case in Indian Courts? Same happens in medical practice. Indians act like a buffoon in all such cases which takes us to Macaulay’s Children. You must be aware of all these better than what I could express. Any British or American doctor comes and openly practice with impunity, nobody bothers.
I feel disgusted at these coconuts.
Unfortunately a lot is going on in the name of minority status even in the higher institutions. You cannot question them even if one wants. It will evoke a fierce reaction and the Govts are paralysed. Public has no clue in such matters who in their vested interests side with the projects done in the name of charity, so called. But are these charities, the charities without hideous tags?
It is time not just for judicial reforms but the need for questioning such a lengthy Quranic or Biblical document? After all, ultimately one has to depend
upon the individual judges for delivery of the judicial remedy. How many judges remember this lengthy version of Geeta before writing their judgement? In fact, if I am not wrong, it is a source of judicial corruption. The legal procedures in the courts need certainly a thorough revisiting to clean the rot in the courts where more than three crores of cases are pending. We talk of justice delayed is justice denied; justice should not only be carried out but it also must appear to be carried out. Our legal luminaries will deliver big lectures, please peruse: (http://www.hcmadras.tn.nic.in/jacademy/articles/Principles%20of%20Natural%20Justice%20T.S.%20Sivagnanam%20.pdf)
I have taken the following excerpt from the same lecture:
a. no man shall be a Judge in his own cause
b. hear the other side – Audi Alteram Partem
You will also notice that it has one Latin maxim also. How many of us realise it and its significance? What is its need to continue? Can it be replaced with our Indian luminous pedagogy? It will never be done with such a closed mind as we have. I see its impact day in and day out. Think a minute and kindly ponder over my statement?
This case of General V K Singh is suffering in the shackled mindset as a legacy of colonialism where some Citizens are more equal than others.
LikeLike
Having been fully engrossed in studying and experiencing our justice delivery system for the last 14 years I am fully convinced that more crimes have been committed and/or caused to be committed by our judges than all the other criminals put together. The National Commission to Review the working of the Constitution- a judiciary headed ( a former CJI was the chairman), judiciary heavy (6 out of the 11 members were from the legal profession!) body- has, in its report submitted to the Govt in 2002, unequivocally stated that “Judicial system has not been able to meet even the modest expectations of the society. Its delays and costs are frustrating, its processes slow and uncertain. People are pushed to seek recourse to extra-legal methods for relief. Trial system both on the civil and criminal side has utterly broken down.” Also, “Thus we have arrived at a situation in the judicial administration where courts are deemed to exist for judges and lawyers and not for the public seeking justice.” You may read a review of this report at http://raviforjustice.blogspot.in/2011/03/report-of-ncrwc-citizens-review.html
You may also support the online petition at http://www.petitiononline.com/jrandac1/petition.html
It is addressed to the President and PM of India to constitute a National Judicial Commission to try and punish guilty judges as per laws applicable to ordinary citizens.
LikeLike
This judgement has created a bad precedence in my opinion. It has allowed a system of no official responsibility versus the sole individual responsibility by denying the legitimacy of the official document of a proof of accepted authenticity in matriculation certificate. Every controversy must have a uniform yardstick law of natural justice. This judgement overtly and covertly violates this basic philosophy of law of natural justice.
Again those who are legal experts will know that this philosophy of law of natural justice is a British Legal Concept to arrive at judgement where the judge has to draw his/her conclusion based on the concept of a conclusion where a person will be expected to act in a given natural circumstances in a given situation. I am expressing in brief for the sake of brevity. It required or did not require a lengthy written document to adjudicate the judgement in every given different situation or a crime or controversy.
But Indian Constitution is a vast written document with its vast written limits. It has a natural limitation on its law of natural justice system; I as a common man understand in its simplicistic version. Law at the end of a day is a matter of simple individual interpretation which may differ from person to person despite its vast written and unwritten statutes, amendments, case laws and etc.
This judgement will be discussed, upheld or derided for a long time to come. But in its given case, it has blown the trumpet for win for some; while for loss to other side, irrespective of its judiciousness or legal acuity.
God Bless
LikeLike
Anyone who have worked both in India as well as UK will know the stark difference between the working style in both nations. In UK, you simply fill up the details without any support papers and you will be deemed correct till your future conduct proves it otherwise.
Back home in India, the system we work in, is that you fill in every details with all its support papers as far and as much details as possible to prove that the details furnished are correct even before perusal. It doesn’t stop there only. You have to supply that information in duplicate or triplicate and that again have to be certified by some authentic public servant of a gazzetted rank or a magistrate or a notary public etcetera etcetera. It is a laughable theatrical exercise if not a caricature.
One must also remember that both the systems are created by the same ruling authority but with a different psychological idea and its impact. UK is their home nation where the concept is to serve, and rightly so; from India, a colonised vassal state, which only needed to govern, its vast populace for the sake of exploitation of its economic resources remorselessly; as you would do it between your own house and your neighbour’s.
They did it with full skill and alacrity. Lord Macaulay mentions about one hundred million population of India in 1835 which was administered by a miniscule of about meagre five to eight thousand English trained superior officers placed in key positions all over the country. They were given indomitable unlimited powers as long as it did not cross the boundary of the monarchy’s vested interest. This is why, “I say that British is the best baniya or businessman”. Learn from him/her, how to conduct your business?
The Governor General of British India was the most powerful tyrant who cannot be compared with any other known tyrant in the history. Those who keep interest in the events of the history will agree with my this statement. His decisions couldn’t be challenged anywhere including the British Courts. After 1857, it got from bad to worse. Lord Macaulay also created a system by giving its adjudicative code of administration via the Indian Penal Code supplemented by Indian Civil and Criminal Procedures later on. All these procedural codes have been adopted more or less in their earlier format with minor changes here and there. Respectfully, Dr Ambedkar Saheb is given a credit to Indian Constitution and its jurisprudence but with very little variance to its British protege. While Britain could govern its vast Empire with practically no written constitution…???
Most important of all, besides the written documents, our post-independence mindset also remained or was deliberately allowed to remain at the same level of IQ as at pre-1947, like a shackled mighty elephant. This judgement in the case of General VK Singh v GoI is just reminiscent of that very mindset. I don’t know, how to put it but Malcolm Muggeridge has expressed it very succinctly when he said that the British has left India bankrupt not only of its material wealth but spiritual wealth also. How correct is he to say so?
Lastly this SC judgement will have a far reaching consequences in its summum bonum to cite as a case law in other legal controversies in future also. My legal expert freinds are well versed in their craft and art.
God bless
LikeLike
It is time to say once again at the top of one’s voice: the king is naked! And in India who else is the king but the judges of the high courts and supreme courts, with the authority to abrogate even laws enacted by the constitutionally empowered bodies?
But for now the two kings I refer to are judges RM Lodha and HL Gokhale who have created new history by denying the Chief of Army Staff the justice that was his due! For all those who could look at the issue without any biases it was an open and shut case in favour of Gen V K Singh. But for the first time two judges of the apex court have held that the date filled erroneously in an application shall be the official date and not the proofs for the correct date submitted along with that application! Those of us who have interacted with public servants know only too well how they demand proofs/affidavits and what have you one after the other to corroborate every data you have entered in any application/complaint/petition. Anyhow, the sordid deed has been done and now the only thing for Gen V K Singh to do is to put in his papers. If he had had any inkling as to the turn the events could have taken he should have kept his papers ready to take to the Defence Minister and rushed to hang his uniform even as the channels started broadcasting the court decision. Unfortunately being in uniform he was gullible enough to trust those whom he should never have trusted. As somebody rightly quipped ‘to have peace of mind you need intimate friends or outright enemies’. To those of us who have seen how the public servants work at grass roots level, with obvious connivance from those above, there is no doubt that the enemies of this country within are worse that those beyond its borders.
Even now it is not too late for Gen V K Singh to put in his papers. He may not cover himself with glory as he would have, had he done it with more promptness. But still, he has the opportunity to beat the manipulators at their own game and ensure that Gen Bikram Singh does not become the next Army Chief.
LikeLike
IS,
Shameful as it is, but it leaves the General only one choice and that is to resign if he wants to live gracefully. He has to discover a plausible cause to do so in pen and paper. His legal advisers could help him discover that. That is the only way to restore the dignity.
LikeLike
Supreme Court upholds govt decision on Army chief’s age – TOI – Feb 10, 2012, 03.00PM IST
NEW DELHI: In a setback to Army chief General VK Singh, the Supreme Court today upheld the government decision on his age issue and said he cannot resile on his commitment accepting the date of birth as May 10, 1950, forcing him to withdraw his petition.
The apex court said it was not in favour of entertaining Gen Singh’s petition that his date of birth should be treated in official records as May 10,1951 and gave him option of withdrawing it.
The court held that no prejudice was done to Gen Singh and the government decision on his date of birth will continue to be there. In view of this, Gen Singh will have to retire on May 31 this year.
The apex court noted that the government has full faith in him and that the court wanted to ensure that he continues to work as the Army Chief as he has been doing.
Gen Singh has to abide by his commitment and honour his letters of 2008 and 2009 accepting the date of birth as May 10, 1950, the court said during over two-hour long hearing in a packed court room.
Finally, Gen Singh withdrew his petition when the court hearing resumed at 2 pm after the lunch recess.
Earlier, at the start of the hearing, attorney general G E Vahanvati informed the court that government has withdrawn its December 30, 2011 order rejecting Gen Singh’s statutory complaint on his age issue.
At the same time, Vahanvati made it clear that the government stands by its decision of July last year to treat his date of birth as May 10, 1950.
Posing tough questions to Gen Singh as to why he did not get the records corrected, a bench headed by Justice RM Lodha said the recognition of his date of birth as May 10, 1950 by the Army does not suffer from perversity and was not grossly erroneous.
It said that all documents at threshold when Gen Singh joined Indian Military Academy and National Defence Academy contain the date of birth as May 10, 1950.
LikeLike
IS,
I agree whole heartedly in this case. That is why, I say that law as written words is nothing more than a poetry who’s interpretations can be as many as the readers and their validity may be difficult both ways – accept or deny. We know that there are plenty of statute lying in the cold storage simply because they have never been made accountable at last. Hence the Government of India may have several excuses to the same tune. This is where the question comes of the intention behind the decisions which will be impossible to fix by legal instruments. God bless
LikeLike
IS,
Mr Antony is a most non performing minister in the UPA and being a Christian on top of other considerations like Ms Ambika Soni, V K Singh could not or may not be the best choice of Sonia because she wants to decimate the AFSPA from J & K which Gen V K Singh is fighting against tooth and nail. Sovereignty of the country is secondary for these corrupt UPA Inc. The main reason for this whole imbroglio seems to me in this undercurrent.
Once AFSPA is revoked from the Kashmir valley partly or wholy, which is what these Lashkar-e Taiyeba goons want and are desperately waiting for. Just like the Talibanis in Afghanistan waiting for NATO forces to depart.
LikeLike
Thanks for this ‘from the horse’s mouth’ report of Adv Bhim Singh. But I doubt if the contention ‘The important question of law which has to be answered by the Supreme Court of India when the writ petition filed by Gen V.K. Singh comes up for hearing, will pertain to the decision by the Chief Justice of India that the Supreme Court shall not entertain any opinion of retired judges even if sought by a lawful agency.’ is valid. We all know what is the validity of legal opinions per se. It is an option available to every citizen to seek legal opinion on any matter and produce it in court if it is favourable to his case. In this case, former CJIs were as entitled to give their legal opinion as Gen V K Singh was entitled to seek, receive and produce it in the court. As the author himself had rightly pointed out, in the Grenadier’s case, the present CJI was simple carried away by anger than logic and I am sure that the author himself can vouch for the fact that that too is not rare in our courts!
LikeLike
SC posers to Defence Ministry on Army Chief’s age row – R. Sedhuraman, Legal Correspondent for The Tribune, Chandigarh, Feb. 3, 2012
The government today had a tough time defending Defence Minister AK Antony’s decision to treat Army Chief Gen VK Singh’s date of birth (DoB) as May 10, 1950 and not as May 10, 1951, as the Supreme Court repeatedly questioned the logic behind the minister’s order based on the second advice of Attorney General GE Vahanvati.
Pointing out that Antony’s ruling had come on a statutory complaint of Gen Singh challenging the MoD’s similar decision that was also taken on the AG’s advice, a Bench comprising Justices RM Lodha and HL Gokhale found fault with the procedure followed by Antony.
The Bench noted that the act of seeking the AG’s advice, particularly when Gen Singh had in a way questioned an identical opinion given by the AG earlier, “appears to have vitiated” the decision-making process and as such the procedure adopted by Antony would not “stand the test of the principles of natural justice or the ultra vires”, the basic features of the Constitution.
After the remarks by the Bench, Vahanvati, appearing for the Centre, said he would take instructions from the government as to whether Antony’s order should be withdrawn to enable Gen Singh to file a fresh statutory complaint with the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT). At this, the Bench posted the next hearing for February 10.
The Bench was hearing for the first time a petition filed by Gen VK Singh, challenging two orders — one passed on July 21, 2011 by the ministry and another on December 30, 2011 by Antony. Both orders said his DoB would be treated as 1950 and not as 1951, as claimed by him on the basis of his matriculation certificate and several other documents.
During the arguments that lasted nearly one hour, the AG contended that the minister had taken his decision “independent” of his opinion or of the views of four former Chief Justices of India — JS Verma, RC Lahoti, GB Patnaik and VN Khare – that had been provided by Gen Singh. Unconvinced, the Bench asked the AG as to how he knew that his opinion had no bearing on the decision taken by the minister. On the other hand, the AG questioned the maintainability of Gen Singh’s petition, contending that the DoB dispute was essentially a service matter and as such he could not have come to the apex court bypassing the AFT.
At this, the Bench said this might pose practical problems as some AFT members could be either junior or senior to Gen Singh. Further, Gen Singh could approach the AFT only if Antony’s December 30 order, passed on a statutory complaint, was withdrawn or quashed.
At one stage, the Bench said it could quash the minister’s order, if the government so wanted to enable Gen Singh to approach the AFT. At the same time, it pointed out that it would be difficult for Gen Singh to get the issue resolved before his retirement that was only four months away in the event of his DoB being treated as 1950. Also, anyway the matter would have to come to the SC for final adjudication even after the AFT ruling, they pointed out.
The Bench also wanted to know the significance of the Army List that showed Gen Singh’s age as 1950.
LikeLike