In TV interviews, Army Chief Gen. V.K.Singh expressed grievance that Supreme Court did not decide his age dispute.
I think there are misunderstandings about how courts function.
I think there are misunderstandings about how courts function.
Summary of his possible grievances
1) Four Former Chief Justices of India had given written opinion that his birth date is 1951, even then Supreme Court did not consider them.
2) "I only wanted a declaration that my birth date is 1951. I wanted nothing further. I was ready to resign. Even then Supreme Court did not declare my birth date as 1951"
3) Instead of deciding my matter, Supreme Court tried to arbitrate. It should have either told me that my case is false, or it should have accepted my case. It should have given a judicial verdict.
Rules of Supreme Court, as usually understood
1) If Supreme Court had given any relief to Army Chief, it would have been accused of giving undue favour to General.
Because in 1,00,000 or more cases it has been already held by courts at fag end of your service, you cannot come to Court to seek change in service birth date records. Neither any High Court or Supreme Court will accept such petition when you are about to retire.
2) Possibly to overcome this legal hurdle, General said, I do not want any consequential relief..(But yet his written petition did ask for consequential relief).
The settled legal position is such that Supreme Court or High Court do not accept a petition unless, there is some thing to be adjudicated, decided, one party is to be given a decree and one party is to be deprived of something. Matters are not admitted for academic discussion.
If General wanted a Public Declaration that his birth date is 1951, only a trial court can grant such Public Declaration under Sec.9 of CPC. Even today he can go to Civil Court to get a Public Declaration of his 1951 birth date. Supreme Court have no power to decide such suit disputes.
3) What about opinion of Four Former Chief Justices of India? All of them may have agreed that birth date is 1951.
Here there seems catch. None of them would have said that at fag end of service, General can file petition in Supreme Court. Reliance on these reports does not help.
4) His grievance that Supreme Court did not gave a verdict on his petition is again wrong. His counsel WITHDREW petition. Had he insisted on a verdict, Supreme Court would have given speaking order giving its reasons and verdict.
From his TV interviews, I can only feel that he has not been properly advised.
Haresh Raichura
28th May,2012
