The army chief has every right to move the court to seek redressal
The army chief, General VK Singh, has done the right thing in filing a writ petition seeking redressal from the Supreme Court (SC) on the age row because that is the only way.
Ultimately, any man, who wants to settle a dispute, even the army chief, has to move the court. It is a civil matter and it has to come to the judiciary. The army chief has every right to move the court.
I don’t find the move as unprecedented; in fact, approaching the civil court shows that the army feels inferior to the civil
institution, which includes the judiciary and the parliament.
If you consider it as an unprecedented move, the question is who is responsible for it. Yes, the army chief has become the first service chief in independent India to take on the government by filing a writ petition to seek redressal from the Supreme Court, but he is not at all concerned about the outcome of the case.
—PB Sawant, former judge of Supreme Court of India
The govt’s stand on the age row is unreasonable and unfortunate
Firstly, the army chief has moved the Supreme Court because he feels that he has not been dealt with in a just manner. One thing is clear to everyone that the army chief maintains that his date of birth (May 10, 1951) is not incorrect. It is because of some system failure that a wrong date of birth has been recorded.
He wants to make himself clear that he is the army chief, and he cannot make a wrong call? How can anyone say that the army chief wants to extend his tenure?
He only wants to prove that he has not become the army chief by giving false information about his age.
I don’t understand what is wrong with the government? What is their problem? The government’s stand is unreasonable and
unfortunate. The army chief is 100% right in moving the court.
—Major Gen (retd) Shashikant Pitre
The army chief’s fight is about getting facts right
I fully support the army chief’s stand on the age row with the government. Whether it is the prime minister, the UPA chairperson, Sonia
Gandhi, or the defence minister, AK Antony — none of them has a right to change someone’s date of birth (DoB).
More than a matter of honour, the army chief’s fight is about getting the facts right. General VK Singh has already made it clear that he does not want an extension of his tenure; he only wants the government to accept his date of birth as 1951, which he maintains is the correct one. The whole issue has snowballed into a controversy because a case like this has never occurred in the past. In India, the date of birth on the school leaving certificate is considered as DoB proof. The Centre’s decision is wrong.
—Major General (retd) SCN Jatar
Gen Singh’s move could impact civilian-military relationship in the country
General VK Singh filing a writ petition in the SC is a very disturbing development, and there is no doubt that it will be looked upon as an unprecedented move.
In my opinion, the army chief should have accepted the government’s order. His move will set a trend that any government order can be challenged, and it could have an adverse impact on several fundamental issues in civilian-military relationship. The army chief is not an ordinary citizen. The question of honour and integrity is secondary. There is no doubt that he must accept the government’s stand on his date of birth.
—Madhav Godbole, former union home secretary
It is obviously a matter of honour, dignity for Gen Singh
General VK Singh has done the right thing by moving the SC to seek justice. Since he is sitting at the helm of affairs, people are making a big issue out of it. It is obviously a matter of his honour and dignity, and the most important point is that it is his personal matter.He has done the right thing by moving the apex court, as his honour is at stake. I don’t see it as an ego clash. The army chief had followed the protocol by filing a statutory complaint with the defence ministry. He approached the SC only when the ministry rejected his contention that he was born in 1951 and not 1950.
—Lt Col (retd) Pradeep Brahmankar
Comments: 3