Army chief General VK Singh takes government to court

[livingdead]

Military and police are not the right institution to fight corruption.
And I dont think he is being punished for being upright, lets not make a hero out of him just because he is from army and govt is corrupt.
The issue is a technical issue, and lets see what court decides.

About army deciding constitutionality of an order, it does not have the required expertise to do so.

 

[KS]

India of My Dreams: The ‘age row’ – Coup against the Army Chief



Dust kicked up in the media has the Army Chief’s date of birth at its core even though it is not the real issue. Sadly, the Government authorities including ministers have sought to portray it as if Gen VK Singh were greedy to hang on to his chair longer by seeking a ‘change’ in his date of birth. If it was so, why should the Government try to bargain with him by dangling ‘compensatory package’ in the form of post retirement sinecures like appointing him ambassador or governor ‘if he agreed’ to retire in accordance with the wrong date of birth? These offers reported widely in the media have not been denied by the Government until now – a live fact that lends credence to the existence of a more sinister intrigue squirming beneath the innocuous looking ‘date of birth ruckus.’

Gen VK Singh has a proud record of unimpeachable credentials as an officer and a gentleman. Even his enemies, if there were any this side of the borders, would find it hard to question his integrity. For a man who has served the country with selfless devotion, any suggestion of greed guiding his petition is not only unfair to the country’s Army Chief – proud symbol of nation’s military might, but also utterly bad for the country and its military where officers lead by personal example. And Gen VK Singh’s personal example has been undoubtedly the most outstanding in all respects all through his long service career. If the general was greedy, he would grab the sinecures offered and oblige the authorities but his principles do not allow him to give up unless the wrong is set right – no matter how lucrative the offer in lieu.

The argument of ‘personal greed’ pushing for a ‘change in the date of birth’ also gets demolished by the fact that Gen VK Singh was fully qualified to be where he is today because neither of these dates would come in the way of his promotion to general’s rank. The ‘change’, if ever it was required, was settled long ago before his admission to the National Defence Academy when the UPSC had sought clarification about the variation in the date birth given in his UPSC application form (10 May 1950) and the date given in his School leaving Certificate (10 May 1951). Having fully satisfied itself from his clarification then, the UPSC had accepted the date given in his School Certificate as the correct date of birth and closed the matter. Everybody knows that legally and conventionally the School Leaving Certificate is the accepted authority for date of birth in all government departments. In the instant case it has also been reinforced by his ‘Birth Certificate’ issued by a Military Hospital. Where is the scope for doubt? Further, at the Indian Military Academy (IMA) when merit list of the passing out course is drawn, dates of birth of each gentleman cadet (GC) is scrutinised while fixing the seniority and allotting Service number to the newly commissioned officers. They are then issued with their Service Identity Card that carries the officer’s date of birth. The IMA authorities too recorded 10 May 1951 as VK Singh’s date of birth in all his documents, which continued without any shade of ambiguity from any quarter until he was seen as a possible contender for the post of Chief of the Army Staff (COAS). Had there been even an iota of ambiguity in his date of birth, he would not have been granted Commission.

Now, as the storm gathers more dust it raises many intriguing questions. When did the second date of birth first appear in the MS Branch records? How did a wrong date of birth erased by the UPSC long ago creep in surreptitiously in the Officer’s service documents at the MS Branch so many years later? Why was no question raised on his annual confidential reports (ACRs) which carry date of birth and are submitted to the MS Branch every year? Why also were no questions raised on other periodical submission of service documents, reports and returns received from the officer’s Unit/Headquarters showing the same date of birth that came to be challenged by the MS Branch years later? Why was the confirmation given by the Adjutant General’s (AG’s) Branch not accepted by the MS Branch even though it is the AG’s Branch that is the official custodian of personal records of officers of the Indian Army? Why did the Ministry of Defence retract its initial decision to order an investigation in the matter? If the General’s contention is wrong, why are the authorities trying to placate and ‘rehabilitate him honourably’?

It is well known in the Services that senior officers of the rank of major generals and above routinely weigh their inter-se probability of rising to higher positions and appointments in the coming years. In a milieu involving course mates and known equals in the Service, it is easy to calculate as to who is in the run for the top rung and who will miss out by superannuating before the incumbent Army Chief retires. Being Chief of an Army which is world’s third largest is naturally a very prestigious and enviable distinction for an Army officer. Besides the lustrous embellishments of the high appointment, the position also has unique authority and an assurance of due prominence in the annals of India’s military history. Obviously, the position of the COAS is lucrative enough to make many in the queue aspire for the high position. However, if there be an unscrupulous person in this queue, the systemic process can be manoeuvred and manipulated especially in times when some very senior army officers including an MS have been recently court-martialled for unbecoming conduct. It is therefore relevant to ask whose interests are served most if Gen VK Singh’s date of birth is altered from 10 May 1951 to 10 May 1950? And who misses his chance to be considered for the top job if his genuine date (10 May 1951) is accepted as actual? The answer to these simple questions will provide you the thread that leads you through the weave to the coterie that conspired and connived to vitiate and circumvent service records of an unsuspecting soldier like VK Singh.

It is the General’s magnanimity that he is simply asking for removal of the ‘mischief’ in his record and not raking up the issue to unravel its cause. An enquiry into the matter might embarrass his predecessors and the Government. Therefore, Gen VK Singh’s is not a case of ‘change of date of birth’ as is being projected in the media. It is becoming more obvious that the entire case is actually a conspiracy that was hatched at the Army Headquarters (MS Branch) to pave the way for some ‘favourite’ who would otherwise have to retire as a lieutenant general unless something is done to force VK Singh out of office in a manner that would appear normal retirement on a date desired by the ‘coterie’. Hence the mischief and fudging of his service records at the MS Branch (Army Headquarters) – and lo, even the Government appears to be conniving in the plot after initial wavering – the Law Ministry upholds one date, the Attorney General upholds another!

Sadly, these are dirty times marked by endless high profile scams in the Government. Even the Army’s image stands smeared by some of its own generals who drifted and succumbed to allurements in a couple of cases of unbecoming conduct. At the time of assuming the office of the Chief of the Army Staff, Gen VK Singh had declared that he would clean up and improve the ‘inner health’ of the Army. True to his word, he has acted against the malaise swiftly and sternly without fear or favour. This healthy trend to restore inner efficiency and professionalism of the Army must continue.

The need of the hour is honest and upright commanders at the top because officers given to manipulation and intrigue for self-advancement can wreak havoc for the country if assigned sensitive offices of high authority in the Armed Forces. It is desirable that absolute and fairness and transparency is observed by the Government in tackling issues concerning military leadership and morale of the Forces. Prudence suggests that truth and justice alone must be allowed to prevail in the Armed Forces, even if such recourse appears unpleasant and bitter for the time being. The on-going ‘date of birth row’, as it has come to be known, must be quickly resolved in a transparent and judicious manner by accepting the General’s actual date of birth as actual and he must continue to serve his full tenure with full dignity and honour that is due to him.

 

[tatasteel]

Army Chief age row: SC rejects pro-General VK Singh PIL



The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed the Grenadiers Association's PIL in the controversy surrounding Army Chief General VK Singh's date of birth. The apex court gave no reasons for rejecting the PIL and said that such an application made by an organisation which is not a party to the case is not admissible.
The Grenadiers Association (Rohtak Chapter) had filed a petition which pleaded that General Singh's date of birth should be fixed as May 10, 1951 as has been mentioned in his matriculation certificate. General Singh had been made a respondent in the petition.
While dismissing the petition the Supreme Court observed that the opinion that opinion of former CJI's cannot be admissible in the court.
"In our view, the writ petition filed at the behest of an association is not maintainable. The writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable," a bench headed by Chief Justice S H Kapadia said.
The Supreme Court also expressed displeasure over annexing the opinion of four former Chief Justices in the petition on the issue.
Breaking his silence over the matter, Defence Minister AK Antony said, "I feel sorry about the controversy. Our government is keeping maximum restraint. This is not a sensational matter. There are Constitutional forums to question the decision of the government. The matter is before the highest court of India. Let us wait for the verdict of the court."
Lawyer of Grenadiers Association Bhim Singh said the Supreme Court's decision can have a serious impact. "We have lost the battle not the war. The SC is not even ready to listen to us," lamented Singh.
Singh also said that this was a matter of pride of a government employee.
The government had accused General Singh of setting a bad precedent to which the Army Chief replied by saying, "This is a matter of honour, not tenure."
The government counsels were present in the court, so government did not make any statement in the court.
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on Thursday refused to comment on the controversy around the date of birth of General VK Singh.
General Singh, a para-commando and veteran of 1971 Indo-Pak war, has been contending that May 10, 1951 should be treated as his actual date of birth as it was mentioned in his matriculation certificate but the Defence Ministry has rejected it as May 10, 1950 is the date entered in his UPSC form for the NDA.
If General Singh's date of birth is taken as May 10, 1951 then he will retire in March 2013 and if May 10, 1950 is accepted then his tenure will come to an end in May 2012. The difference of one year will have an affect on who will succeed him as the next Army Chief.
If he retires on May 31, 2012 then Eastern Army Commander Lieutenant General Bikram Singh will take over as the next Army Chief, but if he demits office in March 2013 then Northern Army commander Lieutenant General KT Parnaik could take over from him as Lt Gen Bikram Singh will retire later in 2012.
But if General Singh is removed or resigns before May 31, 2012, then Western Command Chief Lieutenant General Shankar Ghosh, who is the senior most serving officer in the Army, will take on as the 27th Chief of the Indian Army.
General Singh himself has filed a petition before the Supreme Court seeking a direction to the government that his date of birth be treated as 10.5.1951 and not 1950.


Army Chief age row: SC rejects pro-General VK Singh PIL - India News - IBNLive

 

[Imran Khan]

now what SC REJECT him application .

 

[third eye]

now what SC REJECT him application .

Nothing

This was a PIL filed by the Rohtak chapter of the Grenadiers Association. An orgnisation not a party to the problem. It was not the Generals petition.

This is why the SC has dismissed the PIL.

The case of the Gen remains and shall be heard seperately.

 

[Royan]

now what SC REJECT him application .

Its like this S.C has in the past said tenure ending time is not the time for age correction. Has taken a similar stand on this case too also said Army Chief's age cant' be decided by PIL.

 

[Kazhugu]

Its like this S.C has in the past said tenure ending time is not the time for age correction. Has taken a similar stand on this case too also said Army Chief's age cant' be decided by PIL.

wrong man...the SC has only rejected the pil of the grenadiers association as they were not a party to dispute....all the legal documents are on the side of the Chief and there is no way in hell this corrupt govt is gonna win in this one...

 

[KS]

SC defers Army Chief General VK Singh age row case, slams govt - India News - IBNLive

New Delhi: Army Chief General Vijay Kumar Singh's petition on his date of birth has been adjourned by the Supreme Court till February 10, giving the General and the Central Government more time to resolve the controversy.

With the Supreme Court admitting General Singh's petition, the Army Chief has won round one of the battle. The apex court also criticised the government's handling of the controversy while directing the Attorney General of India to take instructions from the government on the December 30, 2011 order which fixed General Singh's date of birth as May 10, 1950.

The apex court said that the December 30 order relied on Attorney General Vahanvati's opinion given to the government and hence was not correct.

"We are of the prima facie view that decision making process of the government in disposing off General VK Singh's statutory complaint is vitiated. It seems that going to the Armed Forces Tribunal for the General may not be efficacious," the court observed while pointing out that principles of natural justice were not followed in the matter.

The courtroom witnessed heated arguments with the Attorney General and the Solicitor General Rohinton F Nariman representing the Government of India while General Singh's lawyer was Uday Lalit.
The Supreme Court started by putting basic objections to the government on the stand that on July 21, 2011, it had determined General Singh's date of birth and on that order of the government, the General filed a statutory complaint and again, another order was passed on December 30, 2011.
Observing that the July 21 order was made on the opinion of the Attorney General and the December 30 opinion was again made on the opinion of the Attorney General, the Supreme Court said that this was against the principle of natural justice because the government had again sought the opinion of the person who was committed to one particular opinion.

Thirdly, the court also expressed the opinion that if the General was to go to the Armed Forces Tribunal or the High Court, it may not be efficacious because considering the Armed Forces Tribunal, there are Army officers who happen to be the General's junior, and then again there will be a conflict of interest.

So the Supreme Court took the view that the only option left for the General was to fight it out in the highest court of the land.

Before concluding its arguments, the court directed the Attorney General to take a clear stand as to what the Government of India was going to do with the December 30, 2011 order and if they are going to withdraw it.

"Because we (the court) feel that principles of natural justice were not followed and whatever happens, please come back and tell us on Friday", the court added.

In an unprecedented move General Singh on January 16, 2012 moved the Supreme Court to resolve the controversy over his date of birth.There are two sets of General Singh's date of birth in the Army's records leading to a controversy and putting a question mark over when he would retire and the officer succeeding him to lead the 1.13 million strong fighting force.

General Singh contends that May 10, 1951 should be treated as his actual date of birth as it was mentioned in his matriculation certificate but the Defence Ministry has rejected it as May 10, 1950 is the date entered in his Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) form for the National Defence Academy.

The Adjutant Branch, Army's official record keeper, also records May 10, 1951 as General Singh date of birth and the same is mentioned in his Army ID card, driving licence, passport and other service records. Even all his Annual Confidential Reports since 1970 show May 10, 1951 as his date of birth.

But the Military Service Branch has another set of the General's date of birth showing that he was born on May 10, 1950 and this is the date that the Ministry of Defence has been insisting on as being official.