Battle without parallel...

- ...but with neighbourhood echo: Singh moves SC

SUJAN DUTTA

New Delhi, Jan.16: Army Chief versus the Union of India.

Yes, it has happened and it is without parallel.

Gen. V.K. Singh, the chief of army staff, today sued the government that appointed him to the high office to redeem his "honour and integrity" because it has not accepted his contention on his date of birth.

Gen. Singh's continuance in office is now a subject of intense debate.

Should he have resigned?

Fact is: he has not quit before going to court.

Will he resign now?

It is a strong likelihood.

Will the government sack him?

That is a huge risk. An Indian citizen is free to challenge the government under the Constitution.

But with Gen. Singh registering a petition asking for a correction in his records after the government turned down his pleas, India today joined the ranks of colonial cousin Pakistan.

In both countries, the army chiefs have gone to court against their respective governments (see graphic).

In India, the army chief has sought to take the government to court on what is seemingly a service — or as Gen. Singh says, "a personal" — matter. He insists he was born on May 10, 1951. The government recognises his date of birth (DoB) as May 10, 1950, in the wake of a dispute in the records.

Gen. Singh is due to retire on May 31, this year, according to the government. Should his DoB be accepted as May 10, 1951, he would be entitled to another 10 months in office. But Gen. Singh has not sought an extension of tenure.

Gen. Singh has chosen senior advocate Uday U. Lalit to represent him in court, should his petition be admitted.

The petition has challenged the decision of the defence ministry to reject the chief's statutory complaint to the defence minister. It has cited the school leaving certificate among other documents in support of the DoB as 1951 under Section 30 of the Evidence Act.

Puneet Bali, who filed the case in the Supreme Court today, told The Telegraph: "We have pleaded that the court give a direction to correct his date of birth to May 10 1951. We have also asked why after 36 years of service was his DoB changed suddenly in 2006." Bali said the Union of India through the defence ministry had been made the respondent in the case. Bali will be the second counsel and will represent Gen. Singh along with Lalit who will lead the chief's legal team.

The army chief went to court just a day after Army Day. After having gone through the procedural grievance redress mechanisms, "he had no other option left", an associate of the chief said.

Another petition — a public interest litigation (PIL) — is listed for hearing in the Supreme Court on January 20. That petition, submitted by an outfit of former soldiers, the Grenadiers' Association of Rohtak, has also sought correction of the DoB to the chief's preference.

The only other instance that bears some comparison with Gen. Singh's case is that of Admiral Vishnu Bhagwat. Adm. Bhagwat was dismissed as the chief of naval staff by the then NDA government in December 1998. In April 1999, Adm. Bhagwat went to court against the government and his privileges were restored but not his service.

In the meanwhile, then defence minister George Fernandes who was in a semi-public battle with the Admiral, was focused on the politics over the dismissal, a no-confidence motion from the Opposition and was blinded to developments in Kargil that led to the 50-day war along the Line of Control.

"What propriety? Whose propriety? Is the government proper?" the retired Admiral wondered aloud this evening when informed by The Telegraph of Gen. Singh's case.

Asked if the decorum of governance was disrupted because the army chief had gone to court against the government while continuing in office, Adm. Bhagwat said: "What is wrong with being in office? By statute, he has a tenure. Why should he quit? Even law minister Salman Khurshid only last week called him an outstanding officer."

Adm. Bhagwat recalled that he was given the opportunity of taking a high office even after his dismissal when then minister George Fernandes offered to make him chairman of the proposed National Maritime Commission. Bhagwat was not interested. He says that there is not much difference in the way the government treated him and is treating Gen. Singh. "It is the same kind of issue with a different flavour," he said.

But even last week at a media conference leading to the Army Day celebrations, Gen. Singh said it was "a personal issue" that affected his "family life within the four walls" of his house. He said he "would act in organisation interest".

Defence minister A.K. Antony rejected the army chief's statutory complaint — an unprecedented act in itself — in December. The defence minister had referred the complaint to the attorney-general. The attorney-general had, for the third time, given the opinion that altering the DoB after Gen. Singh had accepted his promotions as lieutenant general, army commander and chief of army staff would disrupt order in the organisation.

Gen. Singh had said in his pleas to the government, however, that all his promotions since the time he was commissioned into service (seven promotions in 36 years up to the rank of major general) were based on his 1951 DoB.

But since the time the army chief consulted three former Chief Justices of the Supreme Court and a former solicitor-general who gave opinions in support of his contention, the defence ministry headed by Antony hardened its position.

Then Antony declared in a reply in Parliament in September that the army chief had to retire on May 31, 2012, even though the statutory complaint was pending.

But now the question over whether Gen. Singh will continue in office is occupying mindspace in the military as well as in the civilian bureaucracy.

"He should demit office straightaway," insists retired Maj. Gen. Nilendra Kumar, former Judge Advocate General (JAG). "It creates an embarrassing situation. There could now be a conflict of interest. The government may have to take the opinion of officers junior to the chief who report to him."

Kumar wonders if the Supreme Court will admit the general's petition. The former JAG (top law officer in the army) says that the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) was created to deal with service matters. Even if the Supreme Court admits the petition, says Kumar, it is unlikely to be able to settle the issue in the four-and-a-half months remaining in the general's government-stipulated tenure.

The age row surfaced in 2006, when Gen. J.J. Singh, now governor of Arunachal Pradesh, was the army chief, at the time of Gen. ingh's promotion to lieutenant general. It brewed some more in the tenure of Gen. Deepak Kapoor after Gen. Singh, then Eastern Army commander, ordered a Court of Inquiry into an attempt to transfer land near the military station in Sukna, North Bengal.

Gen. Singh's friends believe he was victimised. But his detractors suspect he is trying to get himself an extra year in office. The line of succession will be determined by Gen. Singh's tenure. Current Eastern Army commander, Lt Gen. Bikram Singh, current Western Army commander, Lt Gen. Shankar Ghosh and Northern Army commander Lt Gen. K.T. Parnaik are among possible successors to Gen. Singh.

Congress spokesperson Abhishek Manu Singhvi said: "It is a matter between the person who has gone to the court and the court."

But PTI quoted Praveen Davar, the secretary of the ex-servicemen department of the AICC, as saying: "Ex-service officers strongly condemn the army chief's move to go to court. It is not in tune with army's ethos, tradition and decorum. The chief of army staff appears to have been badly advised."

The BJP attacked the government, accusing it of having lost credibility. "It is a complete lack of statecraft of the government. Shockingly, the issue, which should have been resolved amicably, is calling for a judicial intervention. This is unfortunate and shows a complete erosion of the credibility of the government," BJP spokesperson Rajiv Pratap Rudy said.