|
| SC breather for Army Chief | | Court gives a week?s time to govt to withdraw its order confirming May 10, 1950, as V K Singh?s date of birth |
| BS Reporter / New Delhi Feb 04, 2012, 00:39 IST |
|
The Central government fielded both the Attorney General and the Solicitor General in the Supreme Court on Friday to defend its stand in the controversy over the age of the Army Chief, General V K Singh, but it appeared to be in retreat after receiving heavy salvoes from the judges.
Counsel for the Chief of Staff did not have to fire even one shot. The judges themselves took the offensive position and round one was clearly in favour of the General. The hearing was adjourned till next Friday.
However, before that date, the government can withdraw its December 30 order confirming the date of birth as May 10, 1950, which the judges repeatedly described as “vitiated”. They said that the main hurdle was that the authorities acted on the advice of the Attorney General in its order of July 21 and then again in its order on December 30.
The Defence ministry’s order of July 21 was based on the advice of Attorney General, G E Vahanvati. When Gen V K Singh challenged it in a statutory complaint, the authorities again acted on the advice of the Attorney General. “This is the main hurdle,” the bench of Justice R M Lodha and Justice H L Gokhale said.
When the authorities acted on the advice of the AG in the first place, the complaint could not have been decided on the same opinion, the judges insisted. “The whole decision-making process has been vitiated,” the bench remarked.
Interestingly, this issue was not raised by Gen V K Singh or his senior counsel, U U Lalit. The judges on their own pointed out this as the first hurdle which the government had to cross. If the government had no explanation, the December 30 order turning down Gen V K Singh’s complaint could be struck down, the judges made it clear. At this point, the government team sought a week’s time to seek “instructions” from the government.
The judges did not go into the merits of the matter whether the decisive date of birth was May 10, 1950, as claimed by the government based on the Army records or May 10, 1951, as claimed by Gen V K Singh.
They were on the preliminary issue of the propriety and the principle of “natural justice”. According to this legal doctrine, a person who has given an advice to an authority that acted upon it should not be part of the decision-making process. In this case, the AG’s opinion was a crucial factor when the ministry arrived at its decision.
The judges made it clear that they were not objecting to the appearance of the AG to defend the government stand, after giving his opinion twice. Vahanvati submitted that according to the Constitution, he has a duty to give advice when the government asks for it. Otherwise, he would be failing in his constitutional duty.
The government side vehemently argued that the Chief of Army Staff should not have come directly to the Supreme Court in a service matter. The Armed Forces Tribunal is the appropriate forum to decide the issue.
If this writ petition is admitted, it would have tremendous consequences for the whole force, they contended. The writ petition is not maintainable, they said, raising a preliminary issue.
The judges countered this stating that the tribunal consisted mostly of men in uniform. Some of them might have been juniors to the person who has lodged the complaint. Therefore, it is not possible to expect an impartial judgment from the tribunal. The judges reiterated that the “root of the matter” was the vitiated procedure which led to the decision-making.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Read Business news in |  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Advertisements |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Content Guide
