The General's Age!

The face-off between the Government and General V.K. Singh ended on a peaceful note today.  The Army Chief termed it a graceful end to the dispute.  The issue was whether the General’s date of birth is May 30, 1950 as per the Government’s stand or May 30, 1951 as maintained by the General.  The matriculation record of the General shows 1951 as his year of birth, but his application to the NDA erroneously shows 1950.  

The Supreme Court ducked this bouncer by playing mediator.  It gently arm twisted the General in to withdrawing his petition while adopting a pacifying attitude.  The court observed that the UPSC record, showing 1950 as the General’s date of birth serves as the primary document for determining his tenure of service.   The court also referred to the two commitments, provided by the General when he was being promoted to Major General and Lt. General in 2008 and 2009 respectively, wherein he accepted 1950 as his year of birth. This forced the General to withdraw his petition before the court could pass an order but not before he got some assurances from the Attorney General that the government never doubted his integrity.  The court also maintained that they had full faith in the General but stated that the Government was not grossly erroneous in considering 1950 as his year of birth.  The learned justices of the court questioned the General’s lapses in never correcting the date of birth in his UPSC records and NDA application. 

It is difficult to believe that the Government was unaware of the General’s intentions to file a petition in the Supreme Court.  It appears to be a case of the two mutually agreeing to sort it out with the help of the highest court, which was tactful in its approach.  The Supreme Court went purely by the UPSC records, allowed the Government to take a final call, and did not recognize a true date of birth for the General.  The decision does not come across as surprising since the Supreme Court, is in itself an institution that depends on the date of births of individual judges to determine its occupancy and, would have been mindful of the precedent its judgment could have set in resolving any such conflicts that could arise within its own walls.