1. Interlocutory application for impleadment is rejected. General Vijay Kumar Singh, Chief of the Army, the petitioner, has approached this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 30-12-2011, Office Memorandum dated 21-7-2011 and order dated 22-7-2011. By these orders/office memorandum, the petitioner's date of birth in the service record has been recognised as 10-5-1950. The petitioner maintains that his date of birth is, in fact, 10-5-1951 and must be treated as such for all purposes in the service record.
2. A caveat has been filed on behalf of the respondent, Union of India. The matter initially came up before us on 3-2-2012. In the course of hearing on that date, certain issues cropped up particularly in relation to the decision-making process leading to the order dated 30-12-2011. At the request of the learned Attorney General, the matter was adjourned for today.
3. As soon as the hearing commenced today, Mr Goolam E. Vahanvati, learned Attorney General, handed over to us a short affidavit of K.L Nandwani, Deputy Secretary, Ministry of Defence, on behalf of the respondent. The affidavit is taken on record. It is stated in the affidavit that the order dated 30-12-2011 may be treated as confined to the order holding that statutory complaint filed by the petitioner was not maintainable. The second part of the order dated 30-12-2011 which deals with the merits on the diverse contentions raised in the complaint has been sought to be withdrawn.
4. We grant permission to the respondent to withdraw the order dated 30-12-2011 to the extent noted above. In view thereof, the petitioner's grievance with regard to the part of the order dated 30-12-2011 which deals with the merits of the controversy does not survive. The principal controversy, accordingly, now remains to the challenge to the Office Memorandum dated 21-7-2011 and the order dated 22-7-2011. By the Office Memorandum dated 21-7-2011, the respondent has annulled the order issued by the Adgmp dated 25-2-2011 and has reiterated that the petitioner's official date of birth will continue to be maintained as 10-5-1950.
5. By order dated 22-7-2011 that followed Office Memorandum dated 21-7-2011, while maintaining that the petitioner's date of birth in the service record continues to be maintained as 10-5-1950, it has been held that there is no reason for it to consider effecting any change in the date of birth of the petitioner as recorded.
6. We have heard Mr U.U Lalit, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, and Mr Goolam E. Vahanvati, learned Attorney General, and Mr Rohinton F. Nariman, learned Solicitor General, for the respondent Union of India, at quite some length.
7. In the course of hearing, Mr Goolam E. Vahanvati, learned Attorney General, stated that the respondent Union of India had not questioned the integrity or bona fides of the petitioner. He also stated that the contest by the respondent Union of India to the writ petition was on a matter of principle and it did not reflect any lack of faith or confidence in the petitioner's ability to lead the Army.
8. As a matter of fact, the question before us in the writ petition is not about the determination of actual date of birth of the petitioner, but it concerns the recognition of a particular date of birth of the petitioner by the respondent in the official service record.
9. In view of the statement made by Mr Goolam E. Vahanvati, learned Attorney General, and the limited controversy in the writ petition as indicated above, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner does not wish to press the matter further and he seeks withdrawal of the writ petition.
10. The writ petition is disposed of as withdrawn.
Order dated 1-10-2013
11. General V.K Singh, the then Chief of the Army Staff, had filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India challenging the two orders and one office memorandum issued by the Central Government. By these orders and office memorandum, the petitioner's date of birth in the service record has been recognised as 10-5-1950. In the writ petition, the petitioner claimed that his date of birth is, in fact, 10-5-1951 and must be treated as such for all purposes in the service record.
12. The matter was initially heard on 3-2-2012 and then on 10-2-2012. On 10-2-2012, Mr U.U Lalit, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, argued at quite some length and then, after seeking instructions from him, stated that the petitioner did not wish to press the writ petition and sought its withdrawal. The writ petition was, accordingly, disposed of as withdrawn observing as follows:
“7. In the course of hearing, Mr Goolam E. Vahanvati, learned Attorney General, stated that the respondent Union of India had not questioned the integrity or bona fides of the petitioner. He also stated that the contest by the respondent Union of India to the writ petition was on a matter of principle and it did not reflect any lack of faith or confidence in the petitioner's ability to lead the Army.
8. As a matter of fact, the question before us in the writ petition is not about the determination of actual date of birth of the petitioner, but it concerns the recognition of a particular date of birth of the petitioner by the respondent in the official service record.
9. In view of the statement made by Mr Goolam E. Vahanvati, learned Attorney General, and the limited controversy in the writ petition as indicated above, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner does not wish to press the matter further and he seeks withdrawal of the writ petition.”
13. The Sunday Express in its New Delhi Edn. on 22-9-2013 has published the statement made by General V.K Singh (Retd.) to ANI. He is said to have told ANI as follows:
“… If the court can define the age of a rape victim on basis of his matriculation certificate, then why has the Supreme Court failed to decide my age despite checking and cross-checking my certificates?
If the superior judiciary of this country can believe the matriculation certificate, and say a rapist and a murderer is a juvenile. What happens to my certificate which has been checked, rechecked and carbon-dated over a period of time? Why? Why didn't they give a decision?
Knowing fully well that they were not going to give a decision since people were pressurising them and asking them not to give it. So, the controversy was created.”
14. Attributing motive to the members of the Bench amounts to scandalising the Court. Prima facie, the above statement of General V.K Singh (Retd.) scandalises or in any case tends to scandalise this Court. It also lowers or tends to lower the authority of this Court which, prima facie, amounts to “criminal contempt” under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 read with Article 129 of the Constitution of India. This Court, therefore, takes cognizance of criminal contempt against General V.K Singh (Retd.) and directs that notice be issued to him as to why he should not be committed to contempt of this Court.
15. Notice be also issued to the publisher of the Sunday Express, New Delhi Edn., dated 22-9-2013 for publishing the above statement of General V.K Singh (Retd.). Notice is made returnable on 23-10-2013 at 2 p.m
16. We request the learned Attorney General to assist the Court in the matter. The Registry may send intimation of this order to the learned Attorney General along with a paper book of Suo Motu Contempt Petition (Criminal) No. 9 of 2013.
Order dated 23-10-2013
17. Contemnors, General V.K Singh (Retd.) and Ramesh Chander Malhotra, are personally present. They shall remain present on the next date. Mr Prabhjit Jauhar, learned counsel, appears for Contemnor 1 and prays for time. He states that Mr Ram Jethmalani, learned Senior Counsel, is to appear on behalf of Contemnor 1, but since he is held up before another Bench, he is not able to attend the proceedings in this matter.
18. Mr Goolam E. Vahanvati, learned Attorney General, submits that on receiving the order of this Court dated 1-10-2013, he wrote to Asia News International (ANI) and asked for ANI report incorporating the interview given by Contemnor 1 which was reproduced in the Indian Express (The Sunday Express) dated 22-9-2013. The learned Attorney General submits that he has received a compact disc (CD) from ANI containing the interview given by Contemnor 1. He seeks time for placing the same on record along with relevant excerpt of the transcript of the interview given by Contemnor 1 to ANI. The learned Attorney General may do so within ten days. Copy of the CD and the relevant excerpt of the transcript of the interview may be given by the office of the learned Attorney General to the Advocate-on-Record representing Contemnor 1 also within ten days.
19. A written response may be filed by Contemnor 1 by 15-11-2013.
20. Insofar as Contemnor 2 is concerned, written response has already been filed by him. Mr F.S Nariman, learned Senior Counsel, appears for Contemnor 2. Though in the written response filed by Contemnor 2, unqualified apology has been tendered, but we would like to hear Mr F.S Nariman, learned Senior Counsel, on diverse issues that may arise for consideration in the contempt petition.
21. List the matter on 20-11-2013 at 2 p.m
Court Masters
Order dated 20-11-2013
22. In response to the notice issued pursuant to the order dated 1-10-2013, a reply is filed by Contemnor 1, General V.K Singh (Retd.). In the reply, inter alia, it is stated as follows:
“… I fully respect the Constitution of India as also the institutions created by it. I have the highest respect for the judiciary particularly this Hon'ble Court … I hereby tender an unqualified apology.”
23. Mr Ram Jethmalani, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Contemnor 1, states that Contemnor 1 withdraws the entire statement concerning judiciary made by him in Hindi and English to Asia News International (ANI) on 21-9-2013. The learned Senior Counsel further states that Contemnor 1 also withdraws all other statements made by him with regard to this Court in earlier interviews after the order of this Court dated 10-2-2012.
24. Contemnor 1, General V.K Singh (Retd.) is personally present. Mr Ram Jethmalani, learned Senior Counsel, made the above statements in his presence.
25. The apology is tendered by Contemnor 1, General V.K Singh (Retd.) at the earliest possible opportunity without contesting the notice at all. The apology tendered by him appears to us to be bona fide. We accept the same.
26. Contemnor 2, Ramesh Chander Malhotra, in response to the notice has filed his affidavit on 17-10-2013. In the affidavit, Contemnor 2 has stated as follows:
“… I again on behalf of the Indian Express and my own behalf offer my unqualified complete sincere apology.”
27. We accept the apology tendered by Contemnor 2.
28. Although in our order dated 23-10-2013, we had indicated that we would like to hear Mr F.S Nariman, learned Senior Counsel for Contemnor 2 on diverse issues that may arise for consideration in the contempt petition but now since both the contemnors have tendered unqualified and unconditional apologies, we do not think any further hearing in the matter is necessary.
29. We, accordingly, discharge the notice and drop the contempt proceedings. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 22248 of 2013 for intervention is rejected.