Indian Army: News & Discussion

[SRoy]

Its not the first (and even the Kolkata incident was not a first time event) occurence.

I've seen pandus getting thrashed by servicemen many times (including one incident in Delhi in early 80s when the pandus were locked inside the police station itself and were administered royal treatment).

The police goons think that they can do whatever they wish, and being the law enforcement themselves they are assured of protection. The problem is when the pandus come up against folks with equally assured immunity.

There is nothing special about the news item just because some Army guys were involved. If some other group of citizens with some kind of immunity from the pandus were involved the results will be the same.

[nelson]

VKS wins the first battle in his "war" against the govt. SC says principle of natural justice violated. Gives time to govt till Feb.

[Murugan]

He was sober all right, but I could also see arrogance on his face.

Diggy and Kapil sibal look sober alright, but we could see arrogance on their faces and who gets a slap ...?... Ex Raksha Mantri who from no angle look arrogant.. I liked the argument!

[Murugan]

The Apex Court gave one-week time to government to withdraw its plea opposing Army Chief's stand.

-IBN

[nelson]

Salient features of today's orders by SC on VKS DoB row.
http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/highl ... row-172944

[Murugan]

The general tune of reporting in Army bashing media is not to report the truth in the case of V K Singh's birthdate issue

[chaanakya]

SC: Govt has vitiated process in determining Army chief's age

The Supreme Court on Friday took strong objection to the way the Defence Ministry had handled Army chief V K Singh's age issue, giving the government another week to explain its stand.

The next hearing is on February 10.

The apex court asked the Attorney General to ask the government on whether it would withdraw a recent order in which the Defence Ministry had rejected the statutory complaint of the Army chief on the age issue. Through this order, the government had fixed his date of birth as May 10, 1950 and not May 10, 1951 as argued by General Singh.

The court questioned the procedure adopted by the government in passing the December 30 order that dismissed General Singh's complaint.

The court said the entire process on deciding the Army chief's age had been vitiated.

Well SC is being charitable to give some time to AKA to save his face. I think he should be gracious enough to restore the honor by agreeing to correct DOB.

[Nikhil T]

The general tune of reporting in Army bashing media is not to report the truth in the case of V K Singh's birthdate issue

For now, IBN/NDTV and even TOI are presenting the facts from the hearing as they are.

[saumitra_j]

saumitra,
As mentioned before the facts of the case are not clear - maybe the army people were at fault. The truth will probably never be known because the media is only about breaking news, and not about complete stories - by next week no one will remember.

Exactly my point - the general tone of discussion here is that we are assuming that the pandus are at fault which *may* not be the case!!

Besides, if your cousin was a young Capt, his boss would not be the CO).

Did not want to be too pedantic hence I did not mean his immediate boss - but my cousin did it for his CO

Staying in Pune, you know about the bridge, people who are new would not (I stayed in Pune for a yr).

Agree if there are no signs etc - there is a CLEAR road sign there a t junction from both the sides (if you are coming from Deccan or from Karve road) - this was not too visible some time back but in the recent past (about 1 to 2 years) it has been made quite visible!!
At the moment I am not in Pune, else I could have posted a photo

This short clip shows who is the reason for violence and ruckus.

Short clips are made by the same press that we love to bash as DDM - I would not take it as the complete truth. Reality is that we do not know what exactly happened. Which means either party could be at fault. I just wanted to say that let us also consider the reality of army men being at fault.

We love to do pandu bashing but I personally know a few pandus - some of my batch mates had their father playing the usual pandu and I personally know the kind of hardship they have to go through! Believe me they are normal human beings like you and I do a lot of unsung jobs without necessarily getting any credit for it. But thats veering off topic so I will desist!

[merlin]

The police goons think that they can do whatever they wish, and being the law enforcement themselves they are assured of protection. The problem is when the pandus come up against folks with equally assured immunity.

Exactly true. If this was a civilian instead of army guys the police would have threatened to "encounter" the civilian. In this case they could not "rob jamao" on the army folks.

[chaanakya]

http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/five- ... 966?slider

• The court, which was hearing a petition by General Singh, asked the government whether it would withdraw this order since the decision-making process in rejecting the complaint was vitiated.

• The court said that there was no independent evaluation of General Singh's complaint and pointed out that the same legal authority had given his opinion in both the cases.

• The court said that there was no independent evaluation of General Singh's complaint and pointed out that the same legal authority had given his opinion in both the cases.

• The court has given the ministry the option of withdrawing its December order before the matter is heard by the Supreme Court. The other option for the Defence Ministry is to take fresh, independent legal opinion to decide on General Singh's complaint. This will then be heard by the court.

NDTV puts a spin that a compromise might be possible. Are we to become a nation of compromisers in each and every case. Is there no one to stand up and say no more compromises. SC judgement on 2G case should open the eyes of all , especially, compromisers in UPA_II.

[Austin]

Pandus job is a unthankful job , odd and long working hours , get paid very low , benefits like housing and other are really bad and then the usual sala chor hai type comment.

[nelson]

Staying in Pune, you know about the bridge, people who are new would not (I stayed in Pune for a yr).

Agree if there are no signs etc - there is a CLEAR road sign there a t junction from both the sides (if you are coming from Deccan or from Karve road) - this was not too visible some time back but in the recent past (about 1 to 2 years) it has been made quite visible!!
At the moment I am not in Pune, else I could have posted a photo

The entry in question is from Alka Chowk. Show me one conspicuous sign, symbolic or in English, from Alka Chowk side. It was not not there eight years back, 2004, as my friends told me in the aftermath me getting trapped. It was not there in 2006 when I got caught. Apparently it is still not there except for a small sign in Marathi as my friend told me a couple of days back.

Sorry for big time OT

[nelson]

Pandus job is a unthankful job , odd and long working hours , get paid very low , benefits like housing and other are really bad and then the usual sala chor hai type comment.

I would say the same for the person in OG, ditto. In addition get killed wantonly and be blamed for human rights violations.

[Sanku]

http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/five- ... 966?slider

• The court, which was hearing a petition by General Singh, asked the government whether it would withdraw this order since the decision-making process in rejecting the complaint was vitiated.

• The court said that there was no independent evaluation of General Singh's complaint and pointed out that the same legal authority had given his opinion in both the cases.

• The court said that there was no independent evaluation of General Singh's complaint and pointed out that the same legal authority had given his opinion in both the cases.

• The court has given the ministry the option of withdrawing its December order before the matter is heard by the Supreme Court. The other option for the Defence Ministry is to take fresh, independent legal opinion to decide on General Singh's complaint. This will then be heard by the court.

NDTV puts a spin that a compromise might be possible. Are we to become a nation of compromisers in each and every case. Is there no one to stand up and say no more compromises. SC judgement on 2G case should open the eyes of all , especially, compromisers in UPA_II.

No more compromises.

None.

Enough is enough.

[rajrang]

Let me recount an incident which is related to the Pune bridge - Army vs Police incident. In my personal experience that bridge is a trap to catch gullible newcomers in the city. There is one inconspicuous signpost in Marathi at the entrance.
My friend and I, who were new to the city, rode into the trap. Midway through the bridge when we were held up in traffic, other drivers in cars and auto shouted at us and asked us to take u-turn to avoid the police on the other end of the bridge, who were always ready to spring the trap. My friend who was riding the scooter duly turned and tried to make an exit from the side we entered. To our hard luck there was a policeman on that end too.
We tried to explain to him that we are new in the city and showed the records of vehicle regn and DL from Chennai and all that. Finally we paid up Rs 200/- on with a challan.
We asked the policeman for the correct way to the end of the bridge without taking it. The policeman said the challan is valid for the day and we can use the bridge!

Here is a post mortem of that junction / bridge.
http://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.co ... e-incident

nelson, having an obscure sign at the entrance and the police waiting at the other end is clear case of entrapment. Any decent court would throw it out.

I thought it was legal for police to use entrapment, temptation etc. to catch offenders.

[Sanku]

So Nelson, my hopes were not misplaced after all. What?

[nelson]

So Nelson, my hopes were not misplaced after all. What?

Let it play out first. The shenanigans of the govt and their advisors are well known. What could have been decided by the Defence Minister his advisor on defence matters the Defence Secretary and the Military Secretary, closeted in a room for half an hour, has taken a year to reach this stage. God knows what they are up to, next?

[Austin]

I would say the same for the person in OG, ditto. In addition get killed wantonly and be blamed for human rights violations.

Sure they do but Pandu deal with civilians on day to day basis , for a jawan it might be when he is on anti-terror ops.

[nelson]

^ what i mean is the thanklessness of a job is not reason enough to do it shoddily.

[Murugan]

Sure they do but Pandu deal with civilians on day to day basis , for a jawan it might be when he is on anti-terror ops.

Pandus deal with civilians (especially weak ones) in uncivilized way on day to day and night basis.

[Austin]

^ what i mean is the thanklessness of a job is not reason enough to do it shoddily.

Surely not but we stay in less than ideal world

[Austin]

Austin, this one can't fly.

As far as pune incident goes we will have to wait and see how it turns out but i was speaking generally , pandus job remains thankless.

[ASPuar]

http://www.expressindia.com/latest-news ... ge/907439/

SC: Govt has vitiated process in determining Army chief's age

Krishnadas Rajagopal
Posted: Feb 03, 2012 at 1136 hrs IST


New Delhi The Supreme Court took strong objection Friday on the 'vitiated' manner in which the Defence Ministry had gone about deciding Army chief General V K Singh's date of birth. A bench of Justices R M Lodha and H L Gokhale slammed the government for its December 30 order, in which the Defence Ministry overruled General V K Singh's argument that his date of birth was May 10, 1951 and not May 10, 1950.

The government took Attorney General G E Vahanvati's legal opinion on the issue and declared – for the second time last year – that his birth year would be considered as 1950 by the government.

The first time the government said General Singh's age was 1950 was in two orders last July. It had sought the Attorney General's legal opinion the first time too, who held the year should be 1950 and not 1951.

The apex court wondered why the government should go back to the same man for an opinion after General Singh complained to the Defence Ministry against last July's order.

The Supreme Court held the entire process that led to the December 30 order was ''against the principles of natural justice''. The apex court sought to know why the government had taken the opinion of the Attorney General when he had already voiced last year that the Army chief's birth year should be considered 1950. Why didn't the government seek a fresh opinion, the court asked.

The court asked the Attorney General to seek the government's opinion on what the Defence Ministry intended to do with the December 30 order – whether it should withdraw it to pave the way for General Singh to approach the government again.

The government has exactly seven days – the next hearing is on February 10 – to withdraw the order. The court said it would quash the order otherwise for a fresh process to begin.

The court also dismissed the government's contention that the Army chief should have approached the Armed Forces Tribunal and not the Supreme Court on the matter. The judges said General Singh was right in coming to them since those on the judicial panel of the AFT were junior to him.

The court said there were other remedies available to General Singh if the government withdraws its December 30 order. The bench however did not comment on the merits of General Singh's argument.

General Singh has approached the apex court seeking a direction to the government to declare May 10, 1951, as his date of birth in place of May 10, 1950.

The bench was hearing General Singh's plea which has accused the government of treating him in a shoddy manner, disregarding 'procedure and principles of natural justice' in deciding his age.

The Attorney General and the Solicitor General Rohinton Nariman defended the government action and said no prejudice is caused to General Singh.

Reacting to the court order, one of General Singh's counsels Punit Bali said they were definitely happy with the order but would not go into the merits of the case since it was subjudice.

He said the main question raised by the court was whether the authority which once rejected the general's statutory complaint can advise the government on the same issue.

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

Challenging the government's decision to determine May 10, 1950, as his date of birth and not May 10, 1951, General Singh, in a 68-page petition, 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.

"The respondent (government) needs to explain as to why the senior most officer of the Army could be treated in a manner which reflects total lack of procedure and principles of natural justice and that too on an opinion obtained from the Attorney General," his petition said.

In his plea, the Army chief also wondered why the Ministry of Defence would doubt the records in the Adjutant General's branch, the official record-keeper of the Army.

"One fails to understand as to why such importance is being given to an inadvertent mistake while filling up the UPSC form while ignoring the date of birth recorded in public record," he said.

General Singh will have to retire from service if his date of birth is determined as May 10, 1950.

General Singh stated that the 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.

It was his right to have a "dignified life", he pleaded in the petition, adding that an Army chief has "a right to retire with dignity".

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.

The apex court had earlier dismissed a PIL on the age controversy filed by Rohtak-based Grenadiers Association.

[Sachin]

So the policeman hit a simple traffic violator on the face and pulled him off his bike because he had "arrogance on his face" and you find nothing wrong?

Now that we pretty much know that:-
1. There were proper sign boards at the entry to the bridge..
2. The traffic police personnel stopped these two in front of the bridge
3. And that there was an argument about paying the fine...
Do you think, this army chap is a "simple traffic violator"?? He tried his trick of attacking the police men on duty there, and getting away with it. It was only when more people (dont know if they were entirely police men) that he kind of got cornered. See the video showing how the duo first tried to ride their way too. If you ask me, this officer was trying to get away from the scene, either by speeding or trying to show his authority. I may sound "politically incorrect here", but still. For such people a slap on the face generally makes a difference. It breaks the ego (and that is for pretty much any one I feel, police man, common man or army man).

The permanent stakeholders for enforcing law and order and traffic rules is the local police, not floating population as in this case.

As I said police really need not bother about deciding on which bridge is out of bound, which road is a one way etc. They may get consulted, but it is not they who draft the laws. The common people inconvenienced with this should get it rectified by contacting the elected body of the area. And now from people from the same area I understand that the civic authorities have put up neat sign boards as well.

You say that me bearing a arrogant look gives you a warrant to slap me? Unjustifiable.

People can have an arrogant look and roam around the place. But if a person violates traffic rules, then gets into an argument, picks up a fight, behaves arrogantly and then tries to scoot from the place; I feel he deserves a few hits.

Why do you want to generalise the action(right or wrong) of a few officers as the 'army having lost the game big time'

Let me clarify. By using the word "Army" I did not mean the entire organisation. What I meant was the "Army folks involved in this melee". So here Army folks at Pune, did miss a chance for a better news report, after these folks also tried their muscle power with media persons.

Why do you want to justify DDM for whom the coverage was just a bilp of high TRP but not see or hear the party whose career and life has been affected by the media's biased coverage

What right did it give the army folks to bash up journalists (or for that matter, any person)? The only problem this time was that journalists proved the point of Pen is mightier than the sword . They did, what they did best.

But I am sure that in such a case no one would be thrown out of their jobs (I dont think the Army would through out these officers). Off course due to these media clippings, the identity of the army people is also neatly established. And will not the Army authorities give a chance for these two folks to say their part as well?

The police goons think that they can do whatever they wish, and being the law enforcement themselves they are assured of protection. The problem is when the pandus come up against folks with equally assured immunity.

And the army goons do the same when they are available at a place in sizeable number . Have seen Army soldiers being fined for traffic violations at my home town (when they come on leave). I have heard from the "horse's mouth"* where an Army family (two officers and their families) get into altercation with the local fishermen in a beach in North Kerala. It reached a situation where one of the officers tried to pull out a revolver etc. That would have been fun, as an indiscriminate firing would have ensured that they get beaten up by the large crowd gathered there. And it was the local Police who did come down and negotiated with both parties and got the officers out.

If this was a civilian instead of army guys the police would have threatened to "encounter" the civilian.

Come on sir. If police went ahead encountering every one who acted against them, there would be very few people left in India .

I thought it was legal for police to use entrapment, temptation etc. to catch offenders.

True. No rule or law in India says that police men cannot lay in wait at a place, hoping to catch law breakers. I think except for stuff like telephone tapping etc., any kind of surveillance, entrapment etc. is also possible.

As far as pune incident goes we will have to wait and see how it turns out

Yes. May be Army can also change their rule books.."Bash up any one you want.. but make sure it is not a journalist, and that they are not around" .

* The person who told me is not a police man, if at all he is closer to the Army side. And this was narratted as a kind of example for "discretion is better than valour" .

[ASPuar]

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 738950.cms

Army chief age row: SC questions govt procedure, defers hearing till Feb 10

PTI | Feb 3, 2012, 12.38PM IST


NEW DELHI: Army chief Gen V K Singh seems to have won the first round in the legal battle on the age row with the Supreme Court on Friday saying the manner in which his statutory complaint was rejected by the government "appears to be vitiated".

Posting the matter for hearing on February 10, the court sought to know whether the government would like to withdraw its December 30, 2011 order.

Defence minister A K Antony had issued an order on December 30 turning down the statutory complaint of Gen Singh that his date of birth be treated in Army's records as May 10, 1951 and not as May 10, 1950.

Posing questions to the government, the bench of Justices R M Lodha and H L Gokhale was of the view that the defence ministry's order of July 21, 2011 holding the date of birth as May 10, 1950 was based on the opinion of attorney general and so was the case when the December 30 order was passed on the statutory complaint.

After the court asked whether the government would like to withdraw the December 30 order, attorney general G E Vahanvati said he will seek instruction from the government on the issue.

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

It said in that case Gen Singh's statutory complaint against July 21 order can be reconsidered by the authorities and there was also an option for him to approach the Armed Forces Tribunal.

During the hearing, the bench observed that when it was held that Gen Singh's complaint was not maintainable, the only remedy he had was to approach the apex court.

From the outset, the bench questioned the decision-making process of the government.

"We are not concerned as much with the decision but we are concerned with the decision-making process which is vitiated as the July 21 order was also based on the consideration of opinion given by the attorney general and when the statutory complaint of the Army chief was decided on December 30, there also attorney general's opinion was taken into consideration," the bench observed.

The bench further said, "The material on record will not withstand the test of principle of natural justice and principle of ultra vires."

The attoreny general and the solicitor general Rohinton Nariman defended the government action and said on the facts no prejudice is caused to Gen Singh.

Reacting to the court order, one of Gen Singh's counsel Punit Bali said they were definitely happy with the order but would not go into the merits of the case since it is sub judice.

He said the main question raised by the court was can the authority which rejected the general's statutory complaint base its decision on the advice of the attorney general who had earlier advised the government to come to a conclusion in its July 21 order.

Telling the media not to read too much, Bali said it is normal procedure for courts to raise queries.

While the attorney general was defending his action in giving opinion, the bench said "we are more concerned about Constitutional principles--whether this order of December 30 stands the test of constitutional principle of natural justice and principle of ultra vires.

It also asked the AG whether the government wants to withdraw the December 30 order.

"Be clear whether you want to withdraw this December 30 order," it said.

To this the attorney general replied, "I will take instructions."

"You take your position about this order," the court told him.

The bench also asked the government as to why should the matter be not brought to an end.

While suggestions were being made that Gen Singh can also approach the Armed Force Tribunal, the bench said, only four months are left for him to retire and it is probably not the best remedy.

The bench also said that though the tribunal is headed by its retired judge, there are also members who come from the services and there is a possibility that they could either be junior or senior to Gen Singh at some point of time.

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.

Challenging the government's decision to determine May 10, 1950, as his date of birth and not May 10, 1951, Gen Singh, in a 68-page petition, 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.

"The respondent (government) needs to explain as to why the senior most officer of the Army could be treated in a manner which reflects total lack of procedure and principles of natural justice and that too on an opinion obtained from the attorney general," his petition said.

Gen Singh stated that the 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.

It was his right to have a "dignified life", he pleaded in the petition, adding that an Army chief has "a right to retire with dignity".

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.

[ASPuar]

This whole Pune incident thing is taking up too much space here and turning into a derailment. Why dont we move it to the Police investigations thread, since that is what it has become now?

[nelson]

So the policeman hit a simple traffic violator on the face and pulled him off his bike because he had "arrogance on his face" and you find nothing wrong?

Now that we pretty much know that:-
1. There were proper sign boards at the entry to the bridge..
2. The traffic police personnel stopped these two in front of the bridge
3. And that there was an argument about paying the fine...
Do you think, this army chap is a "simple traffic violator"?? He tried his trick of attacking the police men on duty there, and getting away with it. It was only when more people (dont know if they were entirely police men) that he kind of got cornered. See the video showing how the duo first tried to ride their way too. If you ask me, this officer was trying to get away from the scene, either by speeding or trying to show his authority. I may sound "politically incorrect here", but still. For such people a slap on the face generally makes a difference. It breaks the ego (and that is for pretty much any one I feel, police man, common man or army man).

I contest all the three points and your summary execution of the 'guilty'. I challenge you to prove it. I have sufficient information to believe otherwise on top of my personal experience few years back.

[Sachin]

Standard disclaimer: I request people NOT to combine my queries below, with the stance I had taken on the Army v/s Police & Journalists combo at Pune.

Challenging the government's decision to determine May 10, 1950, as his date of birth and not May 10, 1951, General Singh, in a 68-page petition, 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.

Hmm.. interesting. So now Gen. V.K Singh is saying that he allowed the then COAS to get the date recorded as May 10, 1950 (in the M.S Branch?). Pure lay-man's question. Will not Gen. Singh at such a high level in the organisation be aware of the promotion and retirement mechanisms laid out in the Army? And what could be the negative and positive outcome in cases a birth date is advanced by a year?

Link from the Hindu
The government maintains that the Gen. General V.K. Singh was promoted on the last three occasions, including as the Chief of Army Staff, with 1950 taken as his the year of birth.
Does the date of birth have any significance when it comes to promotions? If yes, then wont it be right to determine the seniority (and thus the retirement age) based on this date?

I contest all the three points and your summary execution of the 'guilty'. I challenge you to prove it. I have sufficient information to believe otherwise on top of my personal experience few years back.

Let the courts decide, sir!! I have stated my stance and you have stated yours. So peace.. .

[nelson]

^^ @ASPuar
I agree it is not a core issue per se. But it is a reflection of this country's changing mindset towards Armed Forces that is being shaped by the media. The media with passive support of the powers that be is trying to paint the Army in bad shades. This is not an isolated such incident in the recent past.

As for traffic violations are concerned, in the same city an incident and person that killed a score of people received less adverse attention, than an Army officer unknowingly riding a motorcycle on a bridge not allowed for two-wheelers. To me it reveals sinister intentions than anything eles.

[ASPuar]

^^

@Nelson: Of course. Its a smear campaign. But I still feel it should be removed from here.

@Sachin: Matter is in admission before SC, which has given the government a one week chance to save face. The court will now decide. To ask whether the chief 'let' the previous chief change his dob is specious. He was forced to send a signal accepting the change, on pain of derailment of his career. He sent such a signal, noting his strong protest therein. Such a coercion itself is malafide in law. Now lets see what the courts have to say.

[nelson]

Challenging the government's decision to determine May 10, 1950, as his date of birth and not May 10, 1951, General Singh, in a 68-page petition, 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.

Hmm.. interesting. So now Gen. V.K Singh is saying that he allowed the then COAS to get the date recorded as May 10, 1950 (in the M.S Branch?). Pure lay-man's question. Will not Gen. Singh at such a high level in the organisation be aware of the promotion and retirement mechanisms laid out in the Army? And what could be the negative and positive outcome in cases a birth date is advanced by a year?

VKS would have been very well aware of it and much more. His boss, the then chief in 2008 and MoD , would have set aside his name from the panel of officers being considered for promotion to the post Army Commander, had VKS not accepted the pre-condition. In the same breath he maintains that the then had promised actionto reconcile the DoB in due course which did not materialise.

In case a DoB is advanced by a year the person would have more residual service to meet the requirements of the post he is being considered for promotion. In the case of VKS he had that residual service with both the DoB.

[ASPuar]

@Sachin:

Incidentally, your comments in Pune case seem to be against the army itself, rather than about any isolated incident or individual. At this point, I must question, why?

The fact that a policeman of subordinate rank, struck a superior, gazetted government officer is in itself shocking. The fact that the video showed that it was the policeman who began the assault (with a slap) is also telling. You may have any number of complaints about the alleged behaviour of the army personnel, but they did not attempt to hurt anyone. The policeman present attempted to illegally confine them because of some imagined slight by military authorities. How is this their fault?

And just because the police registers FIRs against the officers doesnt mean its true. The law is replete with FIR's, followed by investigations, that have failed the test of a trial. And the police are not the only ones who can register FIR's. The army officers can equally register FIRs against the policemen.

[Sachin]

Sachin: Matter is in admission before SC, which has given the government a one week chance to save face. The court will now decide. To ask whether the chief 'let' the previous chief change his dob is specious. He was forced to send a signal accepting the change, on pain of derailment of his career. He sent such a signal, noting his strong protest therein. Such a coercion itself is malafide in law. Now lets see what the courts have to say.

Okay. Would wait to see if the previous Army chief also gets summoned by the court. Because coercing a junior officer to change his DOB, for what ever reasons is certainly not right. Dont know if the court has in its mandate to find out why the previous Army chief took such a decision.

[Jaybhatt]

The General vs. the Neta - Babu Coterie - today's Supreme Court Hearing

On the basis of the Supreme Court's observations on the first date of hearing today, I would say that both Anthony lungiwallah and Vahanvati mian must be sacked. They just don't have the basic ethics and morality to resign on their own.

In addition to this list, we must add the names of the Defence Secretary (till December 2011) and that insufferable factotum Bimal Julka.

This, however, begs the moot question. Who will sack these low-lives ? The entire chain of decision-making in the current GOI consists of perverted and immoral people, who should not have been promoted beyond the rank of chaprassis.

The inscrutable Sardar is equally culpable - pretending to be very wise and sage.

What did ancient Bharat do to deserve such characters at the helm of affairs ?

[ASPuar]

@Sachin:

Not sure what you mean by mandate. If youre asking whether it can ask the question, then the honble Supreme court has plenary powers to enforce rights conferred by Article 32, 136 of the Constitution.

A bench of justices HL Gokhale and JM Panchal had this to say about the power of the apex court:

“It is plenary power exercisable outside the purview of ordinary law to meet the demand of justice. Article 136 of the Constitution is a special jurisdiction. It is residuary power. It is extraordinary in its amplitude. The limits of the Supreme Court when it chases injustice are the sky itself”

[geeth]

I may sound "politically incorrect here", but still. For such people a slap on the face generally makes a difference

Not just politically, you are legally also incorrect. Armed Forces personnel cannot be detained (leave alone slap) by the police and they have to be handed over to the military provosts. Even trial of the offender is by military court in general, except in cases of rape and murder.

Coming to the ego pary, that is all what they pull their life on..or else, who will face the bullet with a deflated ego?

Let me also add that the attitude of the Tamil nadu Police towards the Armed Forces personnel have been the best that I HAVE OBSERVED (others may have different experience). I have inadvertently violated traffic rules many times (not being familiar or changes in existing route is the primary reason). Every time, they had let me off, at the most suggesting to be careful or not to repeat it. KERALA POLICE HAD BEEN THE WORST IN THIS REGARD.

[ASPuar]

^^

I second the above. If the policeman, thinking that he is above the law because of his uniform, feels that he can break the law, and go around slapping people, then he should be ready to have the bejesus beaten out of him when he comes across someone who wont put up with it. The actions of any policeman behaving in such a way constitute offences, under IPC 354, IPC 323, IPC 160, etc. A complaint in MM or JMFC's court will bring such heroes to heel immediately.

Furthermore, any policeman who acts in this manner, should be ready also to face the music under IPC 354, IPC 323, IPC 160, etc.

The police are not above the law, in ANY situation. And when they break the law, they must be ready to face the consequences. We dont live in a colonial empire, or a police state, where policemen can do whatever they want. The law exists for a reason, and EVERYONE has to follow it. Including the police.

[Sachin]

VKS would have been very well aware of it and much more. His boss, the then chief in 2008 and MoD , would have set aside his name from the panel of officers being considered for promotion to the post Army Commander, had VKS not accepted the pre-condition

Okay. But is'nt it natural? I mean we only have one COAS at any point of time, so at some stage the pyramid becomes steep and officers would be moved out of the panel. For Gen.V.K Singh his age may have played against him, but that is how the established rule works. So who was really ambitious here? The then Chief or the current one?.

the same breath he maintains that the then had promised actionto reconcile the DoB in due course which did not materialise.

I am bit confused here. Do we have any idea on what the "reconciliation" was? Was it to update all records to show the General's age as May 10, 1950 or as 1951?
1. If it was to change the the age as 1950, and it was not done. Is it not ethical to accept this date as true, because this date change had helped the officer with promotions?
2. If it was to change the age as 1951. That I feel is totally incorrect, as this is pretty much like forgery. A DoB is changed in order for promotions, and after they have been received the old date is put back.

In the case of VKS he had that residual service with both the DoB.

Then what advantage does one get in changing the DoB? Is it that say a Maj.Gen with 3 years of service to go, would be placed higher place in the panel than a Maj.Gen with two years more service?

Incidentally, your comments in Pune case seem to be against the army itself, rather than about any isolated incident or individual.

I have corrected that . My comments were on the individual officers and his immediate superiors and at the best directed to Army authorities in Pune. But I must say that since very similar incidents also happen at other Indian cities which have cantonments there seems to be a commonality across the Army.

The fact that a policeman of subordinate rank, struck a superior, gazetted government officer is in itself shocking.

Sir, these people were not in uniform. Secondly they had already started an argument. At this stage I dont know if the fight with the constables were over. After all this, if we still decides things based on the rank etc. etc. it is pretty much accepting that Army people (especially officers) can get away doing any thing. The videos I have seen, starts with the two officers trying to ride through a crowd of people, who seemed already agitated. From the video it was certainly not the case where two folks come riding in, a police man (or a group of them) get worked up and then slaps the bike rider with no questions asked.

Coming to the ego pary, that is all what they pull their life on..or else, who will face the bullet with a deflated ego?

. So you mean to say that rest of the folks (including police men, journalists) should not have this stuff called ego or personal pride? And that they should all volunteer as victims for the ego show by armed forces personnel?

Armed Forces personnel cannot be detained (leave alone slap) by the police and they have to be handed over to the military provosts.

I know that . And that is what makes them all the more uppity. I am okay with this rule in a country where there is some sort of camraderie between police and the army. In India, it is all ego and power play. So if one party gets an advantage that he cannot be prosecuted like a common citizen he is bound to mis use it. Many people say that police misuse it as well, I am not denying that. Lawyers misuse it too.

My last post on this topic, as I have pretty much explained my position and I dont see any more value getting added to it.

Any ways.. time to focus on the General's case .

[nelson]

You say that me bearing a arrogant look gives you a warrant to slap me? Unjustifiable.

People can have an arrogant look and roam around the place. But if a person violates traffic rules, then gets into an argument, picks up a fight, behaves arrogantly and then tries to scoot from the place; I feel he deserves a few hits.

That is a big if that, you have put there. Once an Army officer has introduced himself as one and shown his i-card the next logical step is to issue a challan if he accepts to take one or take it to the court. He can not be detained. I see no other way for well intentioned policeman.

Why do you want to justify DDM for whom the coverage was just a bilp of high TRP but not see or hear the party whose career and life has been affected by the media's biased coverage

What right did it give the army folks to bash up journalists (or for that matter, any person)? The only problem this time was that journalists proved the point of Pen is mightier than the sword . They did, what they did best.

I know this country is preparing to fight the next war with pen because 'pen is mightier than sword'. This video clip and media the coverage, has been seen by 35,000 officers of the Army. What impact would it have on them? Would it not demoralise them for the justice or lack of it in the treatment meted out to their fellow officer.

But I am sure that in such a case no one would be thrown out of their jobs (I dont think the Army would through out these officers). Off course due to these media clippings, the identity of the army people is also neatly established. And will not the Army authorities give a chance for these two folks to say their part as well?

In Army where one is stuck for the contractual period of 20 years, throwing out a person is not the only punishment that can ruin a career. A recordable censure/ reprimand can do the damage.