Another slap to Govt - Army chief row

By Sandhya Jain
Thursday, February 2, 2012

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 would
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.

'Can approach Armed Forces Tribunal'

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, Mr. 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.

End of forwarded post from Sandhya Jain

Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
Om Shanti

-----

About the terrorist Goon Squad:

---------------------------------------------------------------------
As everyone knows, a goon is a bully or thug who terrorizes or tries
to do away with opposition.

"Myself, Mallu. Yourself?" (V. Bhattathiri) <KalluMallu...@gmail.com>
tries his best to be a bully -- telling others what and when to post,
where to post and where not to post, deliberately publishing lies
about others, stalking and abusing them with hate speech -- but fails
miserably. He is really stressed out, and like his lap dog Prem
Thomas (who currently posts as "P. Rajah" <u...@this.com>, and issues
*death threats* to people), is priming himself for conditions such as
stroke and heart disease. Others in the Goon Squad include
Dayashankar M. Joshi "DMJoshi" <josh...@gmail.com> who displays
unquestioning obedience to Goon Squad thugs, and the instigator who
posts as "Bholu" <bh...@hotmail.com>

The Goon Squad currently post most of their abuse through eternal-
september.org and by writing someone else's name or handle in the
"From:" header -- their favorite now is "fanab...@gmail.com" (note
the extra "b" and "gmail.com") to make it appear as if the posts are
from "fana...@aol.com", who has been a regular poster for many years.
-Updated on February 2, 2012-
---------------------------------------------------------------------

     o  Not for commercial use. Solely to be fairly used for the educational
purposes of research and open discussion. The contents of this post may not
have been authored by, and do not necessarily represent the opinion of the
poster. The contents are protected by copyright law and the exemption for
fair use of copyrighted works.
     o  If you send private e-mail to me, it will likely not be read,
considered or answered if it does not contain your full legal name, current
e-mail and postal addresses, and live-voice telephone number.
     o  Posted for information and discussion. Views expressed by others are
not necessarily those of the poster who may or may not have read the article.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This article may contain copyrighted material the use of
which may or may not have been specifically authorized by the copyright
owner. This material is being made available in efforts to advance the
understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic,
democratic, scientific, social, and cultural, etc., issues. It is believed
that this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as
provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title
17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without
profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included
information for research, comment, discussion and educational purposes by
subscribing to USENET newsgroups or visiting web sites. For more information
go to:  http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
If you wish to use copyrighted material from this article for purposes of
your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the
copyright owner.

Since newsgroup posts are being removed
by forgery by one or more net terrorists,
this post may be reposted several times.