Tweet
VK Singh’s commitments turn tide in Govt favour
The commitment given by Army chief General VK Singh at the time of his promotion to accept 1950 as his year of birth was the single most important factor that tilted the case in favour of the Government in the Supreme Court on Friday.
The court observed during the hearing that “you left it to the authority to take final call and you said you will abide by it. The commitment must be honoured even if it is not your actual date of birth. Ultimately they are civilian authority and you have to accept”.
When Singh submitted that if the Government was willing to accept his date of birth as May 10, 1951, the Bench said it was “not concerned with determining his age” and his plea was only for recognition of his date of birth.
Singh drew the ire of the court when it gave the option of withdrawing the petition and Lalit said he can say so many things but was restraining himself. The Bench remarked “if dirty linen is to be washed let that stink come out. You can argue. You can wash. Till now both the parties have shown restraint and remained dignified.”
The Bench made it clear that its order on date of birth of May 10, 1950 would apply for service purpose and did not want to go into his age in civilian records as there was no challenge from any quarter to the date of birth mentioned in his matriculation certificate as May 10, 1951.
The court noted that three promotions were given to Singh on the basis of 1950 and “we have to hear the case within the four corners of judicial review”. The Bench then asked “Why at this stage, at the pinnacle of your career this controversy? You hold such a high position. We have faith in system and we have faith in you.”
The Judges then said, “With all pains in your heart, that date of birth was not corrected and constantly taken as 1950. Undoubtedly, the decision was left at the hands of Government authorities. This was well thought, well deliberated and you have respected your commitment repeatedly. You got what a man in Army aspires to get. Then why all this?”
The Bench further said, “why do you want to get out of this now”, adding “we respect your pain”. It also observed “you have achieved what one aspires in the Army. You are a decorated officer. Why then a person of your status is getting into all this. Why this mess at this time.”
The court, however, did find fault with the Army chief seeking judicial intervention and said, “you have just come to the court to point out the Government’s fault in not correcting your date of birth. It’s not that you have come here out of the blue to get benefit. There is no malice in your seeking to restore the date of birth as May 10, 1950.”
The Bench also said, “It is unfortunate, inadvertent or a matter of destiny, whatever you call. You have been very candid and honest,” and such matters “should not have been dragged into public domain and should have been handled properly.”
The commitment given by Army chief General VK Singh at the time of his promotion to accept 1950 as his year of birth was the single most important factor that tilted the case in favour of the Government in the Supreme Court on Friday.
The court observed during the hearing that “you left it to the authority to take final call and you said you will abide by it. The commitment must be honoured even if it is not your actual date of birth. Ultimately they are civilian authority and you have to accept”.
When Singh submitted that if the Government was willing to accept his date of birth as May 10, 1951, the Bench said it was “not concerned with determining his age” and his plea was only for recognition of his date of birth.
Singh drew the ire of the court when it gave the option of withdrawing the petition and Lalit said he can say so many things but was restraining himself. The Bench remarked “if dirty linen is to be washed let that stink come out. You can argue. You can wash. Till now both the parties have shown restraint and remained dignified.”
The Bench made it clear that its order on date of birth of May 10, 1950 would apply for service purpose and did not want to go into his age in civilian records as there was no challenge from any quarter to the date of birth mentioned in his matriculation certificate as May 10, 1951.
The court noted that three promotions were given to Singh on the basis of 1950 and “we have to hear the case within the four corners of judicial review”. The Bench then asked “Why at this stage, at the pinnacle of your career this controversy? You hold such a high position. We have faith in system and we have faith in you.”
The Judges then said, “With all pains in your heart, that date of birth was not corrected and constantly taken as 1950. Undoubtedly, the decision was left at the hands of Government authorities. This was well thought, well deliberated and you have respected your commitment repeatedly. You got what a man in Army aspires to get. Then why all this?”
The Bench further said, “why do you want to get out of this now”, adding “we respect your pain”. It also observed “you have achieved what one aspires in the Army. You are a decorated officer. Why then a person of your status is getting into all this. Why this mess at this time.”
The court, however, did find fault with the Army chief seeking judicial intervention and said, “you have just come to the court to point out the Government’s fault in not correcting your date of birth. It’s not that you have come here out of the blue to get benefit. There is no malice in your seeking to restore the date of birth as May 10, 1950.”
The Bench also said, “It is unfortunate, inadvertent or a matter of destiny, whatever you call. You have been very candid and honest,” and such matters “should not have been dragged into public domain and should have been handled properly.”
