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.
At least I have been consistent in casting aspersions on the SC. The judicial overreach in our country is only a smokescreen to make it appear that everything is OK. Eg is 2G case itself - where the SC judgement on '2G santion to prosecute case' absolved the PM while censuring his advisors. The judiciary is subservient to the executive as is any other constitutional body in this country.Sanjay wrote:Ok.
Here's something to keep at the forefront of one's mind - what was before the SC was not whether the COAS was maligned by outside forces or that the UPA is protecting the corrupt and condoning corruption.
I hold no brief for the UPA and while I have enormous regard for the COAS, I must suggest that casting aspersions on the SC is not warranted in this case.
Apparently the acceptances have had a significant impact on the strength(or lack of it) of his petition. VKS should have made this a criminal writ petition from the very beginning. He should have filed an FIR against the alleged conspirators naming them. It was only because he chose middle path of being decent to the establishment and tackling the case as a person aggrieved by a superior's decision ,that has left him as a destitute today.What was before it was simply a case of addressing an apparently incorrect birth date.
The consequences of rectifying that incorrect birth date could possibly be an extension of time.
The SC had before it the documents submitted by the COAS and GOI.
In those documents, which appear not to have been disputed, the COAS, when he submitted his application to the UPSC/NDA listed his birth year as 1950.
We also have the COAS's birth certificate which shows his birth year as 1951.
However, we apparently have correspondence showing that, for administrative purposes at least, he accepted 1950 as his birth year in 2008.
Having made that commitment, the SC was faced with a decision in which the following factors needed to be considered:
(1) Was there a gross error on the part of the GOI to use 1950 as his birth year ?
(2) Given the fact that 1951 may well have been the COAS birth year did he suffer any discrimination and/or prejudice as a result of any error ?
(3) Does his apparent acceptance of the birth year as 1950 have an impact on the strength of his petition ?
And legality is what the courts look into, right? From what I could understand from your statement was that if Gen.VKS had to become COAS one day, he would have to accept the YoB as 1950. But did he not have the option to stick to his guns and say correct YoB is 1951 and the promotions be damned? He did not do that. Now if the part was that he was forced into giving acceptance, he needs to prove that part as well. I don't think so he has stated that he agreed to have YoB as 1950, else x,y and z people would have harmed him or his career in certain ways. So I don't think the court have even considered this aspect of coercion. At present this looks like a case of "changing the goal posts"geeth wrote: Legally, you are right. But practically, if he had not accepted in 2008 and decided to go on court at that time, he would not have been Army Chief now to protect his honour!
. Agree for being promoted accepting on YoB, but making a complaint when the same date is used as a reference for retirement.Actually no. These are not SC observations, if they are, they have to be written on the record as part of judgement, court room discussions are not "observations".Austin wrote:Exaclty what do you believe in its not IT personal observation but its SC observation.Sanku wrote:No thanks I have had enough of Su-su. They can keep it in India today.
Though questions mean what exactly? That SC should not ask a party though questions if they are right? That means nothing -- it asked the Govt 10x more harder questions than it did Govt. It still does not mean anything.The other option is to wait till SC observation are made public and if news report are to be believed it had its own tough question for the Army Chief.
You still dont get what the real sad issue is, do you. The real sad issue is the fact that SC chickened out and justice was not done.It sad to see the whole Army versus GOI issue had to be fought out this way but finally we have something good coming out of it and Law of Land giving it some Just and Fair meaning to it.
I know you wont agree but lets leave it here.
I do not understand this part. What was the need to make him agree to this YoB of 1950? 1951 was working fine until 2008.Sachin wrote: Agree for being promoted accepting on YoB, but making a complaint when the same date is used as a reference for retirement.
In his own words, he is being treated worse than what GoI treats Paki Army chief.Sanjay wrote:The COAS is still the COAS and is not a destitute..
No, the Military Secretary's office which decides on promotions and postings, always had 1950 as the birth date, ever since he was commissioned in the Indian Army. So during his entire career, he was promoted based on a 1950 birthdate. And as Sanjay points out, he suffered no prejudice by having 1950 as a birth date in terms of his promotions. 1951 may very well be his correct date of birth, but for the purposes of this petition, it is irrelevant. That IMO is what the Supreme Court is saying.viv wrote:
I do not understand this part. What was the need to make him agree to this YoB of 1950? 1951 was working fine until 2008.
nelson wrote:^ Funny, there is a letter signed by the Military Secretary who retired few days back, which says that the promotions to the ranks of Brig and then to Maj Gen and then to Lt Gen were also done on the basis of xx May 1951 as DoB. Ah, here it is...
http://ajaishukla.blogspot.in/search?q= ... etary+nair
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/--b_Lo1lzxPI/T ... etter1.jpg
Nelson-ji there are some posters, during 9 2 11 debate, asserted quite confidently that India will have 200 Nuclear reactors by 2020, which was later "modified" to 2050 then to "a high nuclear energy use in suitable time"nelson wrote: Regarding promotions with 1950 as DoB.
I have already posted in contrary and placed something on this forum to prove. Can you disprove that or qualify your statement with any proof?
Court said......... dont wash dirty linen in public.viv wrote:I do not understand this part. What was the need to make him agree to this YoB of 1950? 1951 was working fine until 2008.Sachin wrote: Agree for being promoted accepting on YoB, but making a complaint when the same date is used as a reference for retirement.
So the court has ruled but side-stepped the real mischief. It did not address the real issue.
It is the AG which is the record keeper. Birth date is not a criteria for promotion (any promotion) other than when one can join the force and when one retires. Forcing an earlier birth date forces an earlier retirement. That was the issue and the cause for speculation that it was done to favour another.ldev wrote:No, the Military Secretary's office which decides on promotions and postings, always had 1950 as the birth date, ever since he was commissioned in the Indian Army. So during his entire career, he was promoted based on a 1950 birthdate. And as Sanjay points out, he suffered no prejudice by having 1950 as a birth date in terms of his promotions. 1951 may very well be his correct date of birth, but for the purposes of this petition, it is irrelevant. That IMO is what the Supreme Court is saying.viv wrote:
I do not understand this part. What was the need to make him agree to this YoB of 1950? 1951 was working fine until 2008.
Sad indeed. Issue not decided on merit but like katta panchayat.Sanku wrote: . The real sad issue is the fact that SC chickened out and justice was not done.
No katta panchayat is better.nelson wrote:I hear today's order of SC in Army Chief age row. My feeling is the 'katta panchayat' in "Chinna Kounder" would have done a more able job.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_CLYjm6eTwg
do Keep watch on who becomes chairman NHRC or Telecom Appellate Tribunals or such other bodies.nelson wrote:
You will know Raj Chengappa's rationale behind his voluminous posts when he gets his RS nomination soon.
You can clearly see that it was addressed to Defence Secretary by the previous Military Secretary. I can not produce an ink-signed hard copy but have sufficient reasons to believe its authenticity.ldev wrote:Nelson,
Is that letter authentic? To whom was it addressed? Was it submitted by VKS to the Supreme Court? Debating on this forum we do not have all the documents that were submitted by both sides to the SC. If VKS believes that he is doing it for principled reasons, why did he withdraw his petition?
We keep getting back to the same point again and again. Why don't you scroll back a few pages and look for the 'reason'?See, if during his earlier promotions say 2006, he had said," I refuse this promotion because by accepting it based on a 1950 birthdate, I will be cheated out of 1 year of legitimate service with the IA", and refused to sign the undertakings, he did, that would have been a principled stand. After all, what further damage can the Army cause you, when you yourself have refused a promotion. They cannot demote you for taking an upright principled stand. And at that point of time, there was no certainty that he would become Army Chief. He should have stood his ground.
...
How the hell can you put words in his mouth? This is getting ridiculous - in your effort to vouch for the Army Chief you've contracted the 'Holier that the Pope' syndrome.Sanku wrote:In his own words, he is being treated worse than what GoI treats Paki Army chief.Sanjay wrote:The COAS is still the COAS and is not a destitute..
So much for that above assertion.
You disregard whatever is written against the good General's legal case and jump to accept anything that other DDMs write in favor of his case, even when the General himself has disregarded those report himself. Strange.In a clarification issued in Delhi, the Indian Army headquarters said the media report in this regard was "factually incorrect" and has been made "to sensationalise" a routine meeting.
Chaanakya, I would not have dared to say it myself, but you are right, as a matter of general interest for a citizen, to know more about important institutions of the country, one should keep a watch by all means.chaanakya wrote:do Keep watch on who becomes chairman NHRC or Telecom Appellate Tribunals or such other bodies.nelson wrote:
You will know Raj Chengappa's rationale behind his voluminous posts when he gets his RS nomination soon.
There would be no review petition, since there was no judgment. The one who has problem will make his move. Give him the weekend's time.Nikhil T wrote:...
After the first hearing in the case when GoI was being castigated, the same people were singing praises for the SC, no one said a word against the judges. The legal aspect of the case has been settled. If anyone has a problem, go file a review petition in the court or else stop shouting hoarse here that "SC skirted the issue" or that "justice wasn't done". It was done, just that you don't like it.
THANKS to give and take by both sides nudged along by a Supreme Court — that blended both diplomacy and law — curtains were drawn today on the legal controversy over the Army Chief General Vijay Kumar Singh’s date of birth.
The bench disposed of his petition after the General said that he did not want to press his case for a final determination on whether he was born in 1950 or 1951. This came after the government withdrew its December 30, 2011 order rejecting his statutory complaint and gave repeated assurances that at no point did it question the integrity of the “graceful soldier”.
Speaking to The Indian Express this evening, General Singh said: “The Supreme Court has given its verdict. And like every democratic citizen of this country, I hold the court in the highest regard. It has upheld my integrity and honour while asking the government to withdraw the December 30 order, against which I had gone to the court. I thank the hon’ble Supreme Court.”
A bench of Justices R M Lodha and H L Gokhale struck a conciliatory chord that led the government to assure that it had contested Singh’s petition only as a “matter of principle.” Attorney General G E Vahanvati went to the extent of writing down the government’s assurance and hand it over to the bench, which recorded the exact intent in its final written order.
The court made it plain that its power of judicial review under the extraordinary jurisdiction of Article 32 of the Constitution was only confined to the “recognition of age as per the service records” and not unearth the “actual age” of the Army Chief.
It pointed that the Army List — which Singh challenged for “discrepancies” — records Singh’s year of birth as 1950, and it was a vital document, baptised by a Presidential Order. Secondly, the Bench observed that there was no evidence to suggest that the UPSC records were later amended to record Singh’s date of birth as 1951 and not 1950. He had admitted in his petition to have “inadvertently” written 1950 as his birth year in his NDA application form as a boy of 14.
While the court referred to the “pain” of having two dates of birth recorded, it said that Singh had accepted — in letters written in 2008 and in 2009 — his date of birth as May 10, 1950. And that he could not now go back on his “commitment”. The court also pointed to how he received three promotions to his final appointment as Chief on these acceptances.
“Were you resisting? You had given them the final call to record your date of birth. This is stated, re-stated and reiterated by you.” Justice Lodha asked the Chief’s counsel and senior advocate, U U Lalit.
Said Justice Lodha: “Why do you want at this pinnacle to wreck this litigation? We have full faith in you to defend this country. Why do you want to re-open all this now? We understand the pain in your heart of having your date of birth not being corrected and recorded as 1951, but ultimately you decided to leave it to the authorities and this decision of yours was a well-thought of one, and not taken in a rush of blood. And you have respected your commitment repeatedly. The two letters in 2008 and one letter in November 2009 is still relevant.”
“We respect your pain,” Justice Lodha said. “I can understand if you have been harassed or you have suffered by the government decision. But you have achieved, you have got what a person aspires for in the army. Why should you, having reached there, having given the commitments repeatedly. why this mess now?
“Very unfortunate,” Justice Gokhale agreed.
“Perhaps I am being looked at by some people who say that this General is lying,” Lalit responded after a moment’s pause.
“No, no, you have been honest, candid. But in January 2008, you left it to the authorities to take a final call. You said you will abide by their decision. If they have taken a decision you must honour the commitment. This (May 10, 1950) may not be the actual date of birth, but the dispute before us is not that, it is only regarding the recognition of date of birth according to your official records. Remember, service is governed by rules and the recognised date does not suffer any perversity or error as agitated under our extraordinary jurisdiction. That is our prima facie view,” Justice Lodha said.
“Yes, no prejudice was done to you,” Justice Gokhale echoed.
“And still they (the Union of India) have faith in you. I fail to understand how by us recording your date of birth as May 10, 1951 and with you retiring on May 31, 2012 it will help you,” Justice Lodha observed.
“The idea of this petition is not to stick to office. As counsel I cannot say certain things.” Lalit hinted at other reasons for his agitation.
To this, Justice Lodha shot back: “I will not use the expression dirty linen washed in public. But if it has come to such a stage, you can wash. But we thought that both parties, being dignified.”
The morning session, which went well into the lunch break, ended with Justice Lodha advising the General that “wise are those who move with the wind”.
“As Chief you continue to serve the country as you have done for the last 38 years. This verdict should not come in the way of your duty. For us it is that a litigant has come and the case decided,” Justice Lodha said, giving time for Lalit to take instructions from his client.
“In any other matter we would not have spared two minutes. We thought that this is not a matter which should be left to a Tribunal, that we should hear it ourselves,” Justice Lodha said.
At 2 pm, when the Bench assembled, Lalit got up with a recommendation that at least the civil authorities should accept year of birth as 1951 to which the court said it could not make a pronouncement to that extent as the case was confined to the date as per the service records and no more.
With Lalit agreeing to not press the matter any further, the court set out to dictate the order, remarking “judges do what other avoid to do”.
In the order, it said: “As a matter of fact, the question before us in this writ petition is not about the determination of the actual date of birth, but it concerns the recognition of a particular date of birth of the petitioner (Singh) by the Respondent (Union of India) in the official service records”.
In the next and final paragraph, the court concluded that “in view of the statement made by the Attorney General and the limited controversy in the petition as indicated above, senior advocate UU Lalit for the petitioner does not wish to press the matter further.”
