The author has written:
There is at least one Supreme Court judgement  clearly stipulating that the only valid DOB record of a person is his / her school certificate at the stage of passing out from school (the old “matriculation certificate”).

But the author, claiming to be a Supreme Court Advocate, has not given any details of the decision – citations as they are legally termed. There have many cases involving the date of birth of Government officials at various levels.
To start with the rules relating to age dispute and a few decisions are clear.

But it would be wrong to say that the Supreme Court has ruled that  the only valid DOB record of a person is his / her school certificate at the stage of passing out from school (the old “matriculation certificate”).  Presuming that there is such a decision, I would have to go through the Supreme Court decision and the context in which the Court made the observations.

I do not know the full facts of V K Singh’s case. Therefore, at this stage, I would not like to make any comments.

The matter is coming up before the Supreme Court this week itself and all the relevant facts would be placed before the Court by the General and by the Government of India. Then I will write again.
But at the present, I can only say that the Supreme Court does not normally directly entertain such disputes. The High Court and other courts are there to start with.

I am giving the Generals profile collected from the internet.

General V K Singh’s profile

V K Singh | Facebook
http://www.facebook.com/pages/V-K-Singh/112951392052154 – Cached

V K Singh | Facebook. … From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. General Vijay Kumar Singh PVSM, AVSM, YSM, ADC (born 10 May 1950) is the 26th General of …

http://www.facebook.com/pages/V-K-Singh/112951392052154

V K Singh

Like

Public Figure

Want to like this page?

To interact with V K Singh you need to sign up for Facebook first.

Sign Up

It’s free and anyone can join. Already a member? Log in.

Description

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

General Vijay Kumar Singh PVSM, AVSM, YSM, ADC is the 26th General of the Indian Army and currently the Chief of Army Staff.

Early life and education

Vijay Kumar Singh comes from Bapora village in Bhiwani district of Haryana state. Singh is a third-generation officer. His father was a Colonel in the Indian Army and grandfather a senior Junior Commissioned Officer (JCO). Singh was educted at Birla Public School, Pilani, Rajasthan.

Military career

Singh was commissioned into the 2nd Battalion of The Rajput Regiment (Kali Chindi) on 14 June 1970. He went on to command the same unit when it was positioned along the Line of Control with Pakistan.

He graduated from the Defence Services Staff College as a honours graduate of the United States Army Infantry School, a graduate of the Rangers Course at Fort Benning and the United States Army War College in Carlisle, Pennsylvania. In the US for the Rangers course, he came first in combat operations.

Note : The date of birth given here is 10 May 1950

The following is the full text of the e-mail

WITH BEST COMPLIMENTS FROM ABHIJIT BHATTACHARYYA ADVOCATE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA. THISHAS BEEN RECEIVED FROM A FRIEND OF MINE. MAY LIKE TO SEE AND KNOW THE TRUTH. SATYAMEVE JAYATE

By Jay Bhattacharjee
18 January 2012

THE PRESENT GOI PURSUES ITS CRIMINAL AGENDA OF

DESTROYING THE INDIAN ARMED FORCES

LET US WISH GEN. V.K. SINGH ALL THE BEST IN HIS STRUGGLE

TO COMBAT THIS VENAL ORGANISATION (THE PRESENT GOVT. OF INDIA)

______________________________________________________________________

I suppose the entire affair had to come to this stage. The soldiers’ soldier, V.K. Singh, has been compelled to knock at the doors of the apex court, to defend his honour and integrity and to combat the slurs cast on him  by a vicious gang of babus and netas.

At this stage, it is vital to analyse the issues that are involved in this sordid conspiracy.

Let us look at the undisputed facts :

(1) The COAS, Gen. V.K. Singh (VKS) has at least 11 documents to demonstrate unequivocally that his date of birth  (DOB) is 10th May 1951, not 10th May 1950

(2) The AG’s Branch in the Indian Army is the accepted and unquestioned authority for all documents, records etc. pertaining  to Army personnel. The records of the AG cannot be queried. It is not disputed that the AG’s files show the DOB of VKS as 10th May 1951.

(3) The only document that shows 1950 as the DOB of VKS is that in the Military Secretary’s Office. Now, the MS only determines promotions etc. – in the case of VKS, the DOB data in the MS office is based on the NDA application form that was filled up by the schoolmaster of VKS when he was applying for his NDA admission test.

How many of us at the age of 14 to 15 in the early 1960s to mid 1960s relied on our seniors (whether in the family or in our schools) to help us in completing the admission forms for NDA / university / IIT etc. ? Almost all of us, I can guarantee.

(4) The COAS duly submitted his birth certificate and school certificate to the NDA authorities, showing his 1951 DOB. His entire career in the Army was based on his 1951 DOB until 2006 (see later), when his elevation to Lt. Gen. was under consideration (see later).

He valiantly fought for the country and loyally served the country without ever knowing that there was this anomaly in his DOB records.

(5) Only in 2006, did the anomaly in the records surface. VKS promptly asked for the two conflicting DOBs to be reconciled on the basis of the correct facts (recorded in the AG’s files).

Let it be said categorically that VKS is not asking for / has not asked for his DOB to be changed, as is being made out by some of the muck – raking media. He is only asking for the correct DOB (as per law) to be recorded. There is at least one Supreme Court judgement  clearly stipulating that the only valid DOB record of a person is his / her school certificate at the stage of passing out from school (the old “matriculation certificate”).

This is when the fun and games started. The babus got into the act and the charade commenced, only to reach the stage of the Chief’s Supreme Court petition yesterday.

The denouement is, of course, yet to come, but, in the process, the country and its armed forces have been thrown into this cauldron by the calculated acts of commission and omission by a coterie of dishonest, anti-national and unpatriotic people in Raisina Hill.

Who are the principal actors in this potential Greek tragedy ?

(A) The two former Chiefs of Army Staff JJ Singh and Deepak Kapoor occupy centre stage in this Machiavellian plot. Both of them have highly questionable career records and have served their own interests rather than those of the country and the Army.

Singh was rewarded with a Governorship because of his pliancy when he was Chief. In the case of Kapoor, the disclosure of his venal involvement in the Adarsh affair surely put paid to his post-retirement ambitions but he had already damaged the Army considerably before his Adarsh peccadilloes. JJ Singh, notoriously, was photographed crying in public after his appointment to the COAS was announced. Hardly a Chief who inspired confidence in his officers and men.

These are the two “stalwarts” who bullied, blackmailed and cajoled VKS not to contest his DOB when VKS was being considered for elevation to the post of Army Commander.

Then there is the Attorney General Vahanvati, a squalid little lawyer, who had a murky track record of representing crooks and criminals in the 2G affair and in other matters. This fellow had the audacity to override the written opinions of 4 former CJI’s on the basic validity of the DOB of VKS. And, there is,of course, the wretched Khurshid fellow – the chap can only act as his nature dictates.

The 4 former Chief Justices of India have all said that the DOB of VKS, in the eyes of the law and based on the facts of the case, is 10th May 1951.

However, Vahanvati mian, throws out all law and jurisprudence and gives a notoriously outlandish opinion that the DOB of VKS must stay as 10th May 1950, because, otherwise, the “line of succession” already decided for the next COAS would be affected.

This perverted view is, of course, promptly accepted by Anthony lungiwallah, Salman Khurshid (the low-life Minority-quota wallah), Chiddu Spectrumambaram, and the other assorted deviants in the current GOI’s centre of power. The ever-complicit PM is equally involved, though, later on, the slippery eel will claim he didn’t know what was going on.

Now, what is this gibberish “line of succession” that Mian Vahanvati is talking about ? The Indian Army is not a tinpot monarchy that has these orders of precedence laid out for the top position. Any Army Commander or equivalent, is eligible for appointment as COAS. Certainly, the senior-most, among them,  has been the usual choice, but this seniority is on the basis of a valid DOB scenario for everybody.

Vahanvati cannot say (and must not be allowed to say) that a wrong record of DOB of a current chief must determine the “line of succession”. And that, too, a “Line of Succession”  that was allegedly prescribed in 2006 and in 2008 by two unworthy Army Chiefs ?

This bizarre nonsense must be strongly challenged and refuted.

Now, I am constrained to mention the unmentionable. The logical conclusion of Vahanvati Mian’s and Khurshid’s contortions is that VKS will be succeeded as COAS by Lt. Gen. Bikram Singh, presently heading the  Eastern Command in Kolkata.  Now, why is this development ominous ?

Bikram Singh, indisputably, has a Pakistani daughter-in-law. Why is that a red flag ? Either the PMO, MOD, and the babus – netas in Raisina Hill are dreaming in colour or they are subscribers to the flat-earth theory. Surely, the India – Pakistan interface is not like the U.S. -  Canada scenario. This is not to cast aspersions on the poor lady in question, but to realise that we all live in a real world environment where we cannot take risks with the nation’s security at the highest level. This is not a stage or a platform where we can adopt a posture best described as utopian. Some would say “ostrich like”.

In the past, this country’s leaders like Nehru have taken great risks with our security by adopting this blinkered, naive approach. In the late 1950s and the early 60s, we had a very senior Foreign Service mandarin whose own brother was in the Pakistani foreign service in an equally senior position. For some time, the two brothers were Chiefs of Protocol in India and Pakistan. No one is saying that the IFS mandarin was unpatriotic, but there were grave risks involved – the situation was a recipe for disaster because of the possibility of totally involuntary mistakes. 

A similar risk scenario in the late 1950s was when Humayun Kabir (for some time, a Minister in the Union Cabinet) had a first cousin  who the chief of police in East Pakistan.

In the present context, we have to be even more cautious. Therefore, alarm bells must ring when people like Vahanvati and Khursheed, aided and abetted by Antony lungiwallah, Chiddu Chidambaram and MMS, are batting for a person who has an Achilles Heel, admittedly not of his own making.

This is a slightly long piece but I strongly feel that is my duty to pen my thoughts.

Let us hope the Supreme Court gives justice to the brave General.

In the meantime, I can only wish him courage and fortitude,  and offer him my unflinching support. My fellow citizens will do the same, I know.

Jai Hind.

Jay Bhattacharjee

PERICLES : FUNERAL ORATION (431 BC)

“The greatness of Athens has been acquired by men who knew their duty and had the courage to do it, who, in the hour of conflict, had the fear of dishonour always present in them, who, if ever they failed in an enterprise, would not allow their virtues to be lost to their country, but freely gave their lives to her as the fairest offering which they could present at her feet”.

P.S. These noble thoughts, I know, will be totally alien to the despicable bunch of reprobates in Raisina Hill.

                                                                                                                   Binoy Gupta

I belong to the 1968 batch of Indian Revenue Service, senior to her in age and experience by several years.
A petty clerk, or for that matter, any other employee, both in the private and government sector, is dismissed from service for a single instance of similar over (or false) billing. Here we have a series of systematic false billings.

For all I know, the allegations may not be correct. I would be extremely happy if they are proved to be false.
Or they may be partly distorted.
But Kiran Bedi owes it to everyone to disclose the facts and come out clean. It is not sufficient for her and her friends to say, “ let the authorities make any enquiry against her and hang her  if she is guilty “.

Coming to the allegations.
What are the allegations? What are the facts? And why Kiran Bedi should disclose details of the concerned expenses?

It is a fundamental expectation that those who fight for transparency should themselves be transparent. Otherwise, they lose the moral authority to be leaders. The public will discard them like rotten maggots.

For the moment, the allegations may not prove corruption, but they certainly demand and merit transparency. Kiran Bedi should make public the relevant facts.

My own conclusions (which of course, may not be fully or even partly incorrect) are as follows:

1.      Kiran Bedi did ask for, and received, reimbursement of her inflated air travel fares, consistently and systematically, over several years. These were probably made on the basis of estimates (or proforma invoices) conveniently supplied by Anil Bal, her travel agent and co-trustee.

2.    Later, Kiran Bedi made payments for her travel expenses to Anil Bal, her travel agent and co-trustee on the basis of actuals, which of course are far less.

3.    Kiran Bedi claims that all the amounts she received, including some from other activities, like books, etc. went to the trust.

4.     The question arises whether or not Kiran Bedi attended the meetings and conferences in her personal capacity. If she did, then the entire excess of receipts less actual expenses would constitute her personal income. Of course, she can make donations to NGOs and claim exemption as per law. But all the receipts and expenses must be shown in her personal income tax returns.

5.     On the other hand, if she attended the meetings, etc. on behalf of her NGO, were the activities justified by the objects of the NGO.

6.    In any event, claiming air fare on the basis of false bills, I repeat false bills, is a serious crime.  The motives are not relevant. Robbing the rich to help the poor would constitute the same serious offence. The law is as simple as this.

7.    Kiran Bedi says enquire and hang me if I am guilty. Great words !  Who will file a complaint against you and invite problems?  Every prudent person will just keep mum.  And even if you are guilty, you cannot be hanged. There is no such penalty for such financial crimes. And everyone knows that an enquiry takes a long time……

8.    Kiran Bedi, if you have any sense of self respect, you should publish full details of all the concerned lectures and talks; names and addresses of the invitors, details of the expenses claimed, received and incurred, and on what basis you claimed the inflated expenses. You should also publish full details of your own personal contributions to the trust. After all what is there to hide?

9.     By the way, I went through the web site of her trust – India Vision Foundation.

http://www.indiavisionfoundation.org/donation-gallery.asp

There are no details of the various donations received…only a long list of names.
If this is what transparency is all about for our leaders, God help this nation.

The Tibetan Refugees in India have been facing a peculiar dilemma.
Even though many of them are born in India and acquire Indian citizenship by birth, they have to describe themselves as Tibetan Nationals.
They are issued identity cards by the Indian Government permitting them to stay in India.

They face peculiar problems such as getting passports, etc.

Recently in:

W.P.(C) 12179 / 2009
Decision Dated : December 22, 2010
NAMGYAL DOLKAR ….. Petitioner
versus
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS ….. Respondent

the Delhi High Court had occasion to decide such a case.

The Court observed that:
“23. The amended Section 3(1)(a) reads as under: ―
3. Citizenship by birth:- (1) Except as provided in sub-section (2), every born in India, -
(a) on or after the 26th day of January 1950, but before the 1st day of July, 1987.‖ (b) …….
(c) …..
Shall be a citizen of India by birth.”

The Court went on to hold:

“28. In the considered view of this Court, the above ground for rejection of the Petitioner‘s application for passport is untenable. As already noticed, the concept of  ‘nationality’ does not have legislative recognition in the CA.

The Petitioner‘s describing herself to be a Tibetan ‘national’ is really of no legal consequence as far as the CA is concerned, or for that matter from the point of view of the policy of the MEA. The counter affidavit makes it clear that the MEA treats Tibetans as ‘stateless’ persons. Which is why they are issued identity certificates which answers the description of travel documents within the meaning of Section 4(2)(b) PA. Without such certificate, Tibetans face the prospect of having to be deported. They really have no choice in the matter. It must be recalled that when her attention was drawn to the fact that she could not hold an identity certificate and a passport simultaneously, the Petitioner volunteered to relinquish the identity certificate, if issued the passport. That was the correct thing to do, in any event. The holding of an identity certificate, or the Petitioner declaring, in her application for such certificate, that she is a Tibetan national, cannot in the circumstances constitute valid grounds to refuse her a passport.”

I am giving the link to the full judgement: 

http://lobis.nic.in/dhc/SMD/judgement/22-12-2010/SMD22122010CW121792009.pdf

This is a most welcome judgement.  

Political observers were surprised, when within hours of his announcement, his senior, Home Minister R. R. Patil, distanced himself from Ramesh Bagwe and said he was not aware of the announcement and that Bagwe had not discussed the move (to transfer the Police Commissioner) with him.

Incidentally, Home Minister R. R. Patil belongs to the NCP, while Ramesh Bagwe belongs to the Congress and represents the Pune Cantonment constituency.
Some observers will remember Ramesh Bagwe for picking up Rahul Gandhi’s shoes at a public function as an act of shame.

 Later sequence of events, clarified the reasons for Ramesh Bhagwe’s ire and announcement.
Lakhmi Gautam, Deputy Commissioner of Police (Special Branch) later confirmed that :

• There were 19 criminal cases against Bagwe
• 15 of those were cognizable offences, and
• 4 were non-cognizable offences.

Lakhmi Gautam clarified that that Bagwe had been acquitted by the courts in some cases, while some cases were still pending against him.

All the furore arose at this point of time because Bagwe had applied for the renewal of his passport in January. All passport applications are sent to the police for verification. They verify whether the applicant has any criminal record.

The police found that some cases were registered against Bagwe in some police stations in the city.
The police sent their report about the cases to the Passport Office in Pune which refused renewal of his passport.

On the 15 May 2010, the Maharashtra Home department sought explanation from Pune’s Police Commissioner, Satyapal Singh as to how a junior police officer was allowed to speak to a journalist against the minister of the department that governs the police force.

The Real Issues

• The real issue is not whether Bagwe manages to get Satyapal Singh the Police Commissioner transferred out of Thane.
• The real issue is also not whether the Lakhmi Gautam, Deputy Commissioner should not have spoken to the press and some minor action will be taken against him.
• The issue is also not about the renewal of a minister’s passport.
• The issue is are we so much short good politicians and administrators  that the ruling party(ies) find it difficult to find a clean person for a sensitive post.
• The issue is whether a person with as many as 19 cases in different courts can or should be appointed a Minister of the very department which is in charge of investigations against him.
• Think over. Morality, ethics, common sense and judicial propriety all defy any logic in this appointment.

Issue of Passport

The State Government can not issue a Passport.
Issue of Passport is the Centre’s prerogative.
The Regional Passport Officers have to necessarily refer all applications to the police for verification. And they have specific guidelines on what to do after receiving a negative report.
Obviously, the police could not have suppressed mentioning the case in their report.

Minister with 19 degrees

Come to think of it, when I was Commissioner of Income Tax in Chennai during 1986 to 1993, I used to take part time classes for MBA and P.G. diploma courses in Madras University.

I decided to acquire a number of PG qualifications. I obtained 4 PG Diplomas and a Masters in Law in 6 years.

So in hindsight, a person with so many pending and disposed off criminal cases is perhaps the best person to head the department.
He would know the ins and outs of the working of the police.
And to say the least, Bagwe’s threat to file a defamation suit is simply ridiculous.
And it would be far more ridiculous for the Congress to support him in this infamous case. They should remove him or at least transfer him.

Abortion & Law

There are different legal provisions relating to abortion in different countries.

The Position in India

In India, abortion is not allowed after 12 weeks of pregnancy.
This has led to a piquant situation.

A Unique Case

A couple in Mumbai – Niketa and Haresh Mehta were expecting a child.
A sonography test revealed that the 25 week old foetus had a congenital heart block.
The child-to- be-born would need a pace maker right from its birth and constant medical treatment for the rest of its life involving huge medical expenses.
They decided to get the baby aborted.
Doctors refused to carry out the abortion because abortion after 12 weeks of pregnancy is illegal.

The couple approached the Bombay High Court.
The Bombay High Court appointed an expert committee of three doctors to give their recommendations.
The team gave a report that they were in not in favour of the abortion, but the final decision had to be taken by the couple.

The Judges called the couple and discussed the matter with them.
The couple said they did want a child – but a healthy one.
So they wanted abortion – if legally possible.

The judges offered a suggestion that the state would take care of all the medical expenses of the child.
The couple did not accept the suggestion.
They did not have faith that the government would give timely help.

Dilemma

The Judges are in a dilemma.
They want to follow the law.
They have directed the expert committee to give a clear opinion.

Lord Dennings

It is a well know fact, that under the guise of interpreting laws, judges are constantly making laws.

In the words of Lord Dennings:“ Law does not stand still. It moves continually.Once this is recognised, then the task of the Judge is put on a higher plane.
He must consciously seek to mould the law so as to serve the needs of the time. He must not be a mere mechanic, a mere working mason, laying brick on brick, without thought to the overall design.

He must be an architect – thinking of the structure as a whole, building for society a system of law which is strong, durable and just.It is on his work that civilised society itself depends.”

Go ahead Judges.
You don’t need the support of a team of doctors.
You have the support of the noblest legal luminary in the world.

Dr. Binoy Gupta