Indian Army: News & Discussion

ASPuar · Post by **ASPuar** » 10 Feb 2012 14:56

Once again, the court has merely advised govt and army chief to resolve the matter between themselves. There is no "judgement" per se. The chief has withdrawn his petition, and thats all.

As for any other reporting of what the court has or hasnt said, please take with a bucket of salt. Media outlets are notoriously ill informed.

nelson · Post by **nelson** » 10 Feb 2012 14:57

ASPuar wrote:I dont see what more there is? The court has disposed the chief's petition, because the Chief did not press the petition any further, and withdrew it.

I do not know. See my post above.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 10 Feb 2012 15:03

The SC observation is also very interesting , All the while they have maintained the Dignity and Integrity of Army Chief has been maintained while keeping and upholding the Service and Government Record in mind specially the UPSC and other records which maintained DOB as 1950.

IMO no one looses here both the sides are winner , Army Chief had its say and Government had its way.

Finally all the jurnos who did their job in a fair and professional manner Sandeep Unnithan , Vishnu Som Raj Chengeppa and many others who have put on a fair report when so many were playing dirty games also stands vindicated. Kudos to them.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 10 Feb 2012 15:03

There is no judgement, SC chickened out, it said it did not want dirty linen washed in public.

We need to understand that Chaankya's point is valid, once the order on statutory complaint is withdrawn, there are few grounds for court to intervene.

However overall no doubt a "bad decision" to the extent that we were looking at the court to "crack open the lair and let the sun shine in."

This brushes the whole matter under the carpet.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 10 Feb 2012 15:05

Austin wrote:The SC observation is also very interesting , All the while they have maintained the Dignity and Integrity of Army Chief has been maintained while keeping and upholding the Service and Government Record in mind specially the UPSC and other records which maintained DOB as 1950.

IMO no one looses here both the sides are winner , Army Chief had its say and Government had its way.

Finally all the jurnos who did their job in a fair and professional manner Sandeep Unnithan , Vishnu Som Raj Chengeppa and many others who have put on a fair report when so many were playing dirty games also stands vindicated. Kudos to them.

Sorry Austin, it hurts me to see you support the low lives like SuSu and Raj Chengeppa et al.

The SC chickened out, it had no business saying that such situations should not get discussed in open forum.

The matter is "solved amicably" yes, that is true, however this was not a matter which should have been "solved amicably"

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 10 Feb 2012 15:05

ASPuar wrote:@Austin: The court has not actually delivered any judgement, as you are claiming,

The court has made some very interesting observation on this matter , infact many as the media has been putting out.

nelson · Post by **nelson** » 10 Feb 2012 15:07

I feel that that COAS along with a majority of Army Commanders will resign. No inputs, just gut feeling.

ASPuar · Post by **ASPuar** » 10 Feb 2012 15:07

Chief reported as saying "I will resign within 48 hours if the government is ready to decide my DOB as May 10, 1951".

ASPuar · Post by **ASPuar** » 10 Feb 2012 15:08

Austin wrote: Finally all the jurnos who did their job in a fair and professional manner Sandeep Unnithan , Vishnu Som Raj Chengeppa and many others who have put on a fair report when so many were playing dirty games also stands vindicated. Kudos to them.

What are you talking about?

ASPuar · Post by **ASPuar** » 10 Feb 2012 15:09

Austin wrote:
ASPuar wrote:@Austin: The court has not actually delivered any judgement, as you are claiming,
The court has made some very interesting observation on this matter , infact many as the media has been putting out.

It has delivered no judgement whatsoever. Do not try and BS your way around here.

SagarAg · Post by **SagarAg** » 10 Feb 2012 15:10

WTH....Chu.uti@@p@..we waited soo long for this...

:'(
My understanding: The court said solve the issue among themselves. Right

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 10 Feb 2012 15:13

Sanku wrote:Sorry Austin, it hurts me to see you support the low lives like SuSu and Raj Chengeppa et al.

The SC chickened out, it had no business saying that such situations should not get discussed in open forum.

The matter is "solved amicably" yes, that is true, however this was not a matter which should have been "solved amicably"

Sanku , I am equally Sorry to see you take this stand and continue with it inspite of SC observation on this matter.

I just hope you dont use words like low lives etc against Jurnos , just becuase it does not suit your views..most jurnos work in professional manner and there are differing pov .....in the end the court or govt of the day decides what is fair or best way to take it forward.

Please dont ever use terms like low lives , liffafa etc unless you have any evidence to prove it .....does not make you sound wise.

I always believed SC will take a fair stand on this matter as both parties have been given a fair chance to put up their case and have maintained that in my discussion here .......and finally we know the DOB as far as Service Record goes has been upheld based on the merits.

SC judgement has been Fair and Just and appears to be so.

I think SC judgement

ASPuar · Post by **ASPuar** » 10 Feb 2012 15:15

No judgement.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 10 Feb 2012 15:15

ASPuar wrote:It has delivered no judgement whatsoever. Do not try and BS your way around here.

It has made observation and DOB as 1950 is what will be taken as Service Record ....no matter what ever be his actual DOB be.

sunnydee · Post by **sunnydee** » 10 Feb 2012 15:16

Austin wrote:
Sanku wrote:Sorry Austin, it hurts me to see you support the low lives like SuSu and Raj Chengeppa et al.

The SC chickened out, it had no business saying that such situations should not get discussed in open forum.

The matter is "solved amicably" yes, that is true, however this was not a matter which should have been "solved amicably"
Sanku , I am equally Sorry to see you take this stand and continue with it inspite of SC observation on this matter.

I just hope you dont use words like low lives etc against Jurnos , just becuase it does not suit your views..most jurnos work in professional manner and there are differing pov .....in the end the court or govt of the day decides what is fair or best way to take it forward.

Please dont ever use terms like low lives , liffafa etc unless you have any evidence to prove it .....does not make you sound wise.

I always believed SC will take a fair stand on this matter as both parties have been given a fair chance to put up their case and have maintained that in my discussion here .......and finally we know the DOB as far as Service Record goes has been upheld based on the merits.

SC judgement has been Fair and Just and appears to be so.

I think SC judgement

+1

SagarAg · Post by **SagarAg** » 10 Feb 2012 15:18

Austin wrote:
ASPuar wrote:It has delivered no judgement whatsoever. Do not try and BS your way around here.
It has made observation and DOB as 1950 is what will be taken as Service Record ....no matter what ever be his actual DOB be.

^^ arre Dictatorship or what. When DOB is 1951 why will it be taken as 1950.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 10 Feb 2012 15:20

Age row: Army chief withdraws plea against govt

Army chief General V.K. Singh on Friday withdrew his petition on his age row after the Supreme Court said that there was no scope for it to decide on the matter.

The army chief finally lost the age war to the government after the apex court blow as it recognised May 10, 1050 as his date of birth and not 1951 as claimed by him.

General Singh would now have to retire on May 31, 2012, as per his service records. "I will resign within 48 hours if government is willing to decide my date of birth as May 10, 1951," Gen Singh had earlier told the apex court.

Earlier, after hearing the two sides, the Supreme Court had directed the government and the army chief to arrive at a mutual settlement asking the latter to withdraw his petition.

The Supreme Court observed that the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) document, which mentioned his date of birth as May 10, 1950, is the most relevant document for recognition of age and asked the Army chief 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 no prejudice was done to Gen Singh and the government has full faith in him. "We want to ensure that Gen Singh continues to work as Army Chief as he has been doing," said SC.

The Supreme Court said Gen Singh's writ petition was not for determination of date of birth but for recognition of date of birth in official records.
It said that looking into the constraint of judicial review, the decision of government on his date of birth will continue to be there.

During the proceedings, Attorney General G.E. Vahanvati told the court that government and 'raksha mantri' has full faith and confidence in Gen Singh to lead the Army.

The judges put some tough questions to the Army chief asking why he did not get his date of birth corrected with the UPSC which had recorded it as May 10, 1950.

It said all documents "at threshold" when Gen Singh joined IMA, NDA recorded his date of birth as May 10, 1950.

"The documents at the threshold when you wanted to join IMA, NDA contains the date of birth as May 10, 1950.

"In all documents at the threshold you date of birth is recorded as May 10, 1950," it noted.

The court also said that the primary record for Gen Singh's date of birth was with UPSC which never corrected it.

"If they (UPSC) don't do what do you do," the bench of R M Lodha and H L Gokhale asked senior advocate U U Lalit who is appearing for Gen Singh.

Highlights:

* SC not in favour of entertaining Gen Singh's petition, gives him option to withdraw it.
* Recognition of Gen Singh's date of birth as May 10, 1950 by Army does not suffer from perversity and is not grossly erroneous: SC
* 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: SC
* No prejudice was done to Gen Singh and government has full faith in him: SC
* Singh's writ petition was not for determination of date of birth but for recognition of date of birth in official records: SC
* Apex court says looking into constraint of judicial review, the decision of government on his date of birth will continue to be there: SC
* We want to ensure that Gen Singh continues to work as Army Chief as he has been doing: SC.
* Having given his commitment and assurance of abiding by the government decision, he cannot resile: SC to Gen Singh

Govt withdraws order dismissing Army chief's statutory complaint

Earlier in the day, the government told the Supreme Court that it has withdrawn its December 30 order rejecting General Singh's statutory complaint for treating his date of birth as May 10, 1951 instead of May 10, 1950.

The government's decision to rescind the order came against the backdrop of the Supreme Court stating that its December 30 order was vitiated and would be quashed if this was not done.

Attorney General G.E. Vahanvati, however, made it clear that government was sticking to its July 21 and July 22 orders of last year turning down Gen Singh's plea on the age row.

While Gen Singh has maintained that his date of birth is May 10, 1951, the defence ministry has insisted that it should be treated as May 10, 1950.

As the hearing in the case began, the bench wanted to know from the Attorney General as to what is the instruction he has about the December 30 order.

Attorney General responded to the bench saying that the second part of the order is treated as withdrawn.

On that the bench said, "You are withdrawing the order (of December 30)."

The Attorney general said that the "December 30 order goes but July 21 and 22 stands".

When AG informed that the December 30 order has been withdrawn, the bench said "what was troubling us will not stand before us".

Solicitor General Rohinton Nariman cited three letters of Gen Singh to say that he has been unequivocally given his personal rights. .

The court on February 3 had given an option to the government to "withdraw" its December 30 order rejecting his statutory complaint, saying it was "vitiated".

"Be clear whether you want to withdraw this December 30 order, or we quash the order," the court had said prompting Attorney General to say he would take instructions from the government.

The apex court felt that the December 30 was vitiated as the decision taken by the authority was in consultation with opinion of the Attorney General on whose opinion also the first order was passed on July 21 last year.

Gen Singh had sought change in his date of birth in May last year on which the Ministry of Defence had issued a memorandum on July 21 followed by an order on July 22 deciding that his date of birth would be treated as May 10, 1950.

The apex court had said there were other remedies available for Gen Singh if the government withdraws its December 30, 2011 order.

Gen Singh had moved the apex court in January this year accusing the government of treating him in a manner reflecting total lack of adherence to procedure and principles of natural justice in deciding his age.

The Army chief took the unprecedented step of dragging the government to the apex court after the Defence Ministry had insisted upon treating May 10, 1950, as his official date of birth, necessitating his retirement on May 31 this year.

Gen Singh has maintained that his acceptance of 1950 as the year of his birth was given in good faith at the behest of the then chief of Army Staff and not due to agreement with the conclusion of the Military Secretary's Branch.

Gen Singh stated that government's action and conduct in refusing to accept his contention on his birth date was affecting his image before the general public and the armed forces.

Referring to the ministry's orders of December 30 and earlier rejecting his case, the Army Chief has said that these orders have "conveniently ignored" his matriculation certificate, entire service record including entry into service, promotions and annual confidential reports.

He has stated that being a highly decorated officer, he had received all his awards, decorations and promotions as per the date of birth being 10.5.1951.

Read more at: http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/army ... 72910.html

nelson · Post by **nelson** » 10 Feb 2012 15:22

I feel sad that my earlier apprehensions have been proved right. As long as VKS presents his case, in whatever forum, as an aggrieved they were not going to sit up and take notice. Unless he had some explosive evidence of criminal conspiracy against him he had little chance. And this holds in future too.

kapilrdave · Post by **kapilrdave** » 10 Feb 2012 15:23

Welcome to Banana Republic of India.

sunnydee · Post by **sunnydee** » 10 Feb 2012 15:25

kapilrdave wrote:Welcome to Banana Republic of India.

Could you please explain why you are calling India as the Banana Republic of India ?

SivaVijay · Post by **SivaVijay** » 10 Feb 2012 15:26

The Supreme Court observed that the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) document, which mentioned his date of birth as May 10, 1950, is the most relevant document for recognition of age

So henceforth for all UPSC personnel their UPSC records will supercede their matric certificate , while for others the Matric certificate is the autoritative document as far as DOB is concerned ?

nelson · Post by **nelson** » 10 Feb 2012 15:32

It is both ways.
In 2006 when the plot was hatched to fix his age the powers that be underestimated VKS. When VKS went to court he underestimated the powers of the executive in this country.

krishnan · Post by **krishnan** » 10 Feb 2012 15:36

General Singh would now have to retire on May 31, 2012, as per his service records. "I will resign within 48 hours if government is willing to decide my date of birth as May 10, 1951," Gen Singh had earlier told the apex court.

SagarAg · Post by **SagarAg** » 10 Feb 2012 15:38

krishnan wrote:
General Singh would now have to retire on May 31, 2012, as per his service records. "I will resign within 48 hours if government is willing to decide my date of birth as May 10, 1951," Gen Singh had earlier told the apex court.

Why would government do that. I don't think so it will after the decision by SC went in their favor. In simple words the ball is in there court and they can play it however they want.

Badar · Post by **Badar** » 10 Feb 2012 15:41

I am surprised people are saying no judgment has been made. A clear decision seemed to have been made but the General was given an opportunity to withdraw before the Bench made it official.

IANAL but looking at the fragmented reports on the net this was my take of the situation.

SC Bench:
"General Saab not lying - actual DoB is 51". (Generals High-Five).
"Whole service was under 1950 DoB, so for service related matters 51 should be reference date". (Babus High-Five).

Bench to General : "What do you say General, would you like to withdraw the petition and let the Govt decide your age? Or you want us to pass the above ruling?".

General saab withdraws.

Net result - What MoD Babus say is the final word on his birth date wrt to his service. Clear victory to the government. If anyone has any different insight/interpretations of the proceedings then please illuminate.

kapilrdave · Post by **kapilrdave** » 10 Feb 2012 15:43

sunnydee wrote:
kapilrdave wrote:Welcome to Banana Republic of India.
Could you please explain why you are calling India as the Banana Republic of India ?

I think it is very easy to understand this statement IF you want to. I'm sorry, I will not waste my energy to explain you something that you don't want to understand.

sunnydee · Post by **sunnydee** » 10 Feb 2012 15:44

Marten wrote: What does one say if the highest court of the land that lays the law says that "the proof of age" considered for all Indian citizens will be superseded if they provide UPSC with erroneous data/date on the forms. NO PROOF thereafter can be considered. This is certainly a precedent, wouldn't you agree?

I am not lawyer so i dont have the skills to interpret the court verdict...However i am not sure if its ok to questions the apex courts observations esp by comparing it to a kangaroo court...

ASPuar · Post by **ASPuar** » 10 Feb 2012 15:47

Peculiar... why are you using words which have not been used in the statement which you are questioning?

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 10 Feb 2012 15:47

Austin wrote: Sanku , I am equally Sorry to see you take this stand and continue with it inspite of SC observation on this matter.

Nonsense Austin, SC has observed that it wants to chicken out. What is there to continue about that.

I just hope you dont use words like low lives etc against Jurnos , just becuase it does not suit your views..most jurnos work in professional manner and there are differing pov ...

Oh really, a scurrilous attack on character of Army chief is "high living" according to you?

I am really disappointed by lack of standards here.

..in the end the court or govt of the day decides what is fair or best way to take it forward.

Which means we should stop thinking for ourselves is it? Totally?

Please dont ever use terms like low lives , liffafa etc unless you have any evidence to prove it .....does not make you sound wise.

Oh really, what about the remarks by KC Singh that Manmohan had personally ordered his attack dogs loose on a good general who stood up to his shengians.

.and finally we know the DOB as far as Service Record goes has been upheld based on the merits.

SC judgement has been Fair and Just and appears to be so.

I think SC judgement

Austin what is so terribly wrong with you

. There has been no judgement. Isnt that obvious. They have said that they are not going to speak on date of birth since the General accepts he does not want to seek longer tenure so talking about date of birth is not relevant and the matter stays dismissed without listening.

SagarAg · Post by **SagarAg** » 10 Feb 2012 15:47

Agreed with you Badar ji but
* 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: SC
What was this all about

And if his Whole service was under 1950 DoB, i.e. all the promotions and other stuff and Gen Singh was aware of it then I dont see a point why the above BS and all the hungama.

SivaVijay · Post by **SivaVijay** » 10 Feb 2012 15:49

The Judiciary for all its independence is still a civilian arm and so it may be incomprehensible for it when VKS says that he gave the consent letters because he followed what his superior officer has asked him to do (which is how a army works). Overall a huge letdown by SC and a indirect sanction to the gov to have its way by cooking up recs.

Badar · Post by **Badar** » 10 Feb 2012 15:50

SivaVijay wrote:So henceforth for all UPSC personnel their UPSC records will supercede their matric certificate , while for others the Matric certificate is the autoritative document as far as DOB is concerned ?

No that is an unwarranted conclusion I think. VKS correct DoB remains 1951 as acknowledged by the SC/GoI.

All the SC seems to be saying is if you served the bulk of your service tenure under one DoB (weather accurate or not) you cannot change it for a new date at the later stages of your career.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 10 Feb 2012 15:52

Badar wrote:I am surprised people are saying no judgment has been made. A clear decision seemed to have been made but the General was given an opportunity to withdraw before the Bench made it official.

Because my dear Badar there is no judgement. It is quite simple, either there is a judgement or not a judgement -- you cant imagine that there is a judgement when there is nothing.

SC has skirted the issue -- period.

Clear victory to the government..

It is a victory of the government, no two things, but for different reason, it is because the SC refused to push the matter further. For if it was to rule on DoB, it would need to go into the merits of the case, which it made it very clear that it was queasy to do.

Sad.

geeth · Post by **geeth** » 10 Feb 2012 15:52

To me, it appears that the SC bench simply wanted to save the Govt from embarassment. Or else, how can they say UPSC record is the authoritative document, contradicting their own earlier judgement that matriculation certificate is sole document for determining age for service?? May be that was the reason why they were encouraging the Army Chief to withdraw, so that their verbal observations do not come out as an order, and become law. (I am not a lawyer, but I don't think in future, people cannot quote this judgement and say UPSC records should be considered,because there is no judgement in this case)

I also feel, if it were anybody other than the Army CHIEF himself (or other service CHIEFS), they would have ruled in favour of the petitioner. here in this case, they may have thought that giving a ruling in favour of the Army Chief would have made the Govt look so small...and here again the so called "civilian supremacy" would have played a role.

That is my personal feeling about it.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 10 Feb 2012 15:53

Badar wrote:Net result - What MoD Babus say is the final word on his birth date wrt to his service. Clear victory to the government. If anyone has any different insight/interpretations of the proceedings then please illuminate.

Well what SC said was for purpose of service his DOB will be 1950 and not 1951 as the General would have liked it to be as far as his Service goes.......but for the other Court says he can proceed with 1951 DOB .

Now it does not matter who lost or won ...SC gave a Judgement based on merits of case.

sunnydee · Post by **sunnydee** » 10 Feb 2012 15:53

ASPuar wrote:Peculiar... why are you using words which have not been used in the statement which you are questioning?

The original question was questioning one of the posters calling india a banana republic...

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 10 Feb 2012 15:54

Badar wrote:
SivaVijay wrote:So henceforth for all UPSC personnel their UPSC records will supercede their matric certificate , while for others the Matric certificate is the autoritative document as far as DOB is concerned ?
No that is an unwarranted conclusion I think. VKS correct DoB remains 1951 as acknowledged by the SC/GoI.

All the SC seems to be saying is if you served the bulk of your service tenure under one DoB (weather accurate or not) you cannot change it for a new date at the later stages of your career.

No SC is saying that if you don't want extra tenure, and the whole thing is about just your integrity we will get everyone to agree about your integrity so we dont wash the dirty linen in public.

Why was SC so queasy about the dirty linen. Let the dirty linen be brought out. Enough is enough.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 10 Feb 2012 15:56

Austin wrote:
Badar wrote:Net result - What MoD Babus say is the final word on his birth date wrt to his service. Clear victory to the government. If anyone has any different insight/interpretations of the proceedings then please illuminate.
Well what SC said was for purpose of service his DOB will be 1950 and not 1951 as the General would have liked it to be as far as his Service goes.......but for the other Court says he can proceed with 1951 DOB .

Now it does not matter who lost or won ...SC gave a Judgement based on merits of case.

Austin I challenge to you show the bolded statement by the court in form of a decision.

If you cant back it up with a credible link (not Su-su's writing please) it will be good -- otherwise please stop putting words in SCs mouth.

SivaVijay · Post by **SivaVijay** » 10 Feb 2012 15:56

When did the govt acknowledge 1951, all it stated was that as per its records it is 1950. It never said that "We acknowledge 1951 as his DOB unconditionally but would require him to go by 1950 as in his UPSC record" , had it done tht the chief wouldnot have gone to court in the first place. It was a question of honour and integrity for the chief.

sunnydee · Post by **sunnydee** » 10 Feb 2012 15:57

Marten wrote:

Who is comparing the SC to a Kangaroo court and who is passing judgment on the verdict? Kindly retract your statement and do NOT attribute such stuff to me.

Ok i apologise if you are not calling india a banana republic because of the court judgement...