Disclaimer

Wednesday, January 4, 2012

Date of birth row: ‘Line of succession trumps all logic.’

by Lt-Gen Harwant Singh (Retd)
               
Ministry of Defence has finally rejected the Army Chief’s statutory complaint. Attorney General, on whose opinion the Ministry took the decision, has contended that “changing” the date of birth would alter the army’s ‘line of succession’. If ‘line of succession’ is the only legal thread by which the Attorney General’s opinion hangs, then he needs to do some more time in a law school!
         
Gen VK Singh was born on 10 May 1951 in military hospital, Pune and the same was entered in the service record of his father (14 Rajput). Date of birth in his school leaving certificate is 10 May 1951. At the time of filling application forms for UPSC examination for entry into NDA  his teacher, wrongly entered 10 May 1950 in stead of 10 May 1951 as  date of birth. VK Singh was then 14 years old and without realizing this error, signed the application. He was eligible for entry into NDA in both the cases, (age 10 May 1950 and 10 May 1951).

Before his interview at the Services Selection Board, school leaving certificate,  letter from his father’s unit, indicating his date of birth as 10 May 1951 as well as police verification of age was sent to the UPSC. Based on this he was ‘provisionally’ allowed to join NDA: pending receipt of Board Examination Certificate. His NDA and IMA records reflected his date of birth as 10 May 1951.

On commissioning, his unit sent Form No IAFZ-2041 to AG’s Branch  and the same was done by I M A. In both the cases date of birth was noted as 10 May 1951. His original Board Certificate was forwarded to AGs Branch at Army HQ in April 1971 (within 2 years of commissioning). Status concerning date of birth  was changed from ‘Provisional’ to ‘Permanent.’ However the Military Secretary’s branch did not correct its record.

MS branch continued with the old argument that ‘change of date of birth’ could be carried out only within two years of commissioning. It was pointed out that, firstly the AG’s branch had carried out the correction within the stipulated two years and secondly it was not  a case of ‘change of date of birth’ but one of ‘correction.’   

AGs branch had confirmed in writing to the officer that his date of birth in its records was 10 May 1951. In Dec 2007 Ministry  asked MS branch to give reasons for recording 10 May 1950 as the date of birth and to conduct an inquiry in the matter. MS replied that date of birth was taken from the officers initial application to the UPSC, but conducted no inquiry. It quoted GoI office memorandums  of  23 June 1954 and of 21 April 1964 under which no change in date of birth could be made after 2 years of commissioning. Curiously enough it contended that verification of date of birth was not its responsibility but was on the charter of duties of AG’s Branch: where the date of birth had been amended as far back as 1971!

A ‘line of succession’ to the post of COAS appears to have been worked out. The then Army Chief pressurized the officer to accept, 'in the interest of service’  10 May 1950 and that he would later have it amended. Gen VK Singh keeping the ‘service interest’ in mind, good faith and assurance from his chief accepted this arrangement. Nothing was done to correct this anomaly in the MS branch records.   

Within two days of receipt of the complaint,  Minister of State for Defence, announced  that the Ministry had already taken a decision on the subject. Here then is a case where, due diligence and ‘application of mind’ apart, the case stood pre-judged and  decided.

Min of Law had opined that the officer’s date of birth has to be taken as 10 May 1951. Later the Attorney General reversed this decision. For the Attorney General, hospital record, service record of the officer’s father, police report, school record and Board Examination Certificate are not proof enough of date of birth, but it is the ‘line of a succession’ which determined the date of birth. For him, because of this issue of ‘line of succession,’ Gen VK Singh was born on 10 May 1950 and not 10 May 1951!  He does manage to turn jurisprudence on its head.!

The case exposes the chasm that exits between the office of the Army chief and the Defence Minister. Dealing with the case in a cavalier manner and with disdain has shocked the defence services. This denigration of the institution of the COAS will have a long term debilitating impact on the military. In all likelihood the Gen may not wish to serve for a few more months, but the issue is of probity and honour.  

Click to enlarge

Please also see an Article written by Col LK Anand (Retd) on the subject  at  (Srl No 22) on the left side of the blog. 

11 comments:

  1. General V K Singh shall quit or face action for fudging his date of birth

    It is totally unbecoming of the army chief General V K Singh to be involved in a bitter public row over his date of birth and to drag the government to court over it. The chief repeats ad nauseam that he was born on May 10, 1951, and produces his birth certificate (from an army hospital), matriculation certificate, service records , etc, as proof.

    But the fact remains that he was admitted to the National Defence Academy (NDA) in June 1966, aged 15, despite the minimum age for admission being 16½. He was able to do so by mentioning 1950 as his year of birth when filling out the entry form for NDA.

    It is another matter that Gen V K Singh went on to be an outstanding officer and military strategist, who has risen to the very top of his profession. But the fact of the matter is that when Gen Singh was a major general, waiting to be promoted to lieutenant general, he did give a written undertaking that he would abide by 1950 as the year of birth and not petition for it to be changed to 1951. Reportedly, it was only in 2006 that the discrepancy in his birth year in the documents held by the adjutant general's office and that of the military secretary's was noticed by army headquarters.

    Having been promoted to a higher rank on an assurance (and promoted again since), it is wholly inappropriate on the chief 's part to now demand that 1951 be accepted as his year of birth. The General now insists that official acceptance of 1951 (so that he can remain army chief till 2013) is a matter of honour and army morale. On the contrary.

    The chief 's course of action would only undermine the proud reputation and dignity of the Indian military, one of the few institutions that remain above controversy, by continuing to challenge the government's stand. The year entry in the NDA admission form was plainly fudged.

    And if the General insists on 1951 as the year of his birth, the government should ask the chief to step down and initiate disciplinary action for fudging, cover-up and gross impropriety. No general, however distinguished, ought to have the perverse right to rewrite well-laid down military rules and procedures, simply to stay on in office.

    by B Bates balraj.bates@gmail.com

    http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/opinion/gen-v-k-singh-shall-quit-or-face-action/articleshow/11358990.cms

    ReplyDelete
  2. Dear Veterans,

    Gen Harwant Singh's article is well written and has made a good case for the Chief's defence. Today, I was watching an interview by our Law Minister, Salman Kurshid on the NDTV. The Minister said that it is indeed a sad moment when things have come to such a pass. He said that there is no question of challenging the veracity of the Chief's claim or doubting the integrity and honesty of a great soldier. But, the Rules are applicable to all Govt Servants including the Armed Forces. There is a time limit for representation of amending the Date of Birth (DOB). The Rules cannot be bent to accommodate any particular individual. Now I quote Gen Harwant Singh's take on this issue:-

    "MS branch continued with the old argument that ‘change of date of birth’ could be carried out only within two years of commissioning. It was pointed out that, firstly the AG’s branch had carried out the correction within the stipulated two years and secondly it was not a case of ‘change of date of birth’ but of 'correction'

    Our Law Minister having given a clean chit to the Chief mentioned that, "however the rules cannot be changed or altered to suit a particular individual. The rules apply uniformly for every one irrespective of the position he holds. He was meaning that the application for corrective action was not initiated within the stipulated time by the concerned officer.

    Only authentic records can prove or disprove this point, to which most of us have no access. The authorities in power have.

    The second point which Gen Harwant Singh has made is quoted below:-

    "A ‘line of succession’ to the post of COAS appears to have been worked out. The then Army Chief pressurised the officer to accept,'in the interest of service’ 10 May 1950 and that he would later have it amended. Gen VK Singh keeping the ‘service interest’ in mind, good faith and assurance from his chief accepted this arrangement. Nothing was done to correct this anomaly in the MS branch records".

    It is quite difficult to buy this line of argument. How can a Chief of Army Staff, claim that he was pressurised by the previous Chief in accepting an incorrect DOB, when being considered for the appointment of Army commander? What ever may be the reason, one thing is amply clear that even having come to know about the dispute regarding his DOB, the Chief waited till last year to raise this issue. If as an Army Commander he could sacrifice his authentic DOB for the sake of 'Service Interest', the same is beckoning him more today, as the Chief of Army Staff to keep alive the Service Interest. He may relinquish his position with his honour intact and allowing the next in line to take over.

    Salman Kurshid also made a pertinent point. The Govt will take decision based on the merits of the case. The opinion of the Advocate General is not an overriding factor. When asked by Barka Datt, he readily accepted that ultimately it may be the court deciding the issue, indicating that the Govt is prepared to go all the way in this case.

    Col (Retd) TN Raman
    colram40@yahoo.com

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hello on 3 jan 12 there was a debate on one of the TV channels(i think head lines today)on the above subject. What the anchor MR ARNAB said was that all documents related to GEN V K SINGH, HIS HIGH SCHOOL CERT, HOSPITAL BIRTH CERT, ETC SHOWED HIS DATE OF BERTH AS 1951, excpt his form at the time of joining which mentioned his dob as 1950.

    What is baffling is why it wasn't corrected for so long. Secondly, it was mentioned that the army chief has a very strong case if he goes to COURT. GEN HOON ONE OF THE PENALISTS WAS OF THE OPINION THAT FOR A GENERAL TO GO TO COURT WAS AGAINST ARMY DISCIPLINE. DOES DISCIPLINE MEAN ACCEPTING WHAT IS INCORRECT? THIRDLY, WILL THIS NOT SEND WRONG MESSAGE TO THE ARMED FORCES PERSONNEL, THAT IF THE ARMY CHIEF CANNOT FIGHT FOR HIS OWN RIGHT, HOW CAN HE FIGHT FOR THE RIGHT OF THE PERSONNEL BELOW HIM?

    AK Gupta

    ReplyDelete
  4. I’ve been following this thread for some time.

    I tend to agree with the comments of veteran Gupta. Gen VK Singh is well within his rights to fight this matter as he sees fit. Just because he is the COAS it should not debar him from fighting his own case.

    Gp Capt VK Vidyadhar

    ReplyDelete
  5. UPA govt's next battle - against its Army Chief


    Ajai Shukla in New Delhi says that The United Progressive Alliance government, still smarting from the Lokpal Bill fiasco in the Rajya Sabha, already contemplates its next battle.

    Business Standard has learnt that the Chief of Army Staff (COAS), General VK Singh, plans to petition the Supreme Court on Monday after the defence ministry (MoD) on Saturday rejected his statutory complaint asking for his date of birth to be reconciled.

    The army chief contends (supported by 19 documents, including matriculation and birth certificates) that he was born on May 10, 1951. That makes him eligible to serve till May 31, 2013, when he would retire after completing 62 years that month.

    The Adjutant General's (AG's) Branch, the army's official record keeper, supports that date. But the Military Secretary's Branch, which handles promotions, has him born on May 10, 1950 and therefore, due for retirement on May 31, 2012. The MoD has ruled that the latter date is correct.

    "The chief will leave on January 5 for an official visit to Myanmar. Before that, he would like to file his writ petition, to which he is entitled as a citizen of India," says a close aide to Gen Singh.

    Sources close to Gen Singh describe him as "extremely bitter" at the government's "backstabbing" over this issue.

    The sources say that Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee was mediating with the army chief on behalf of the government.

    After Gen Singh refused the offer of a post-retirement ambassadorship or governorship, retorting that this was a matter of honour, Mukherjee had allegedly asked the chief to wait till January 16, 2012, when a face-saving compromise would be worked out. To the army chief's surprise on Saturday, the government rejected his petition.

    MediaWatch
    mw_mod@yahoo.com

    ReplyDelete
  6. There does seem to be more to the Army Chief's DOB issue than meets the eye, as brought out in news report below. Otherwise, why would the Chief be offered an Ambassadorship/Governorship etc., but when he refused, promised a face-saving solution by 16 January, and then back-stabbed.

    Face-saving for whom? Obviously the government. But when we talk of 'compromise', it would necessarily be at the cost of the truth, and in this case the Chief's word and honour.

    If this is how the Indian Army Chief is treated, not only by bureaucrats, with whom there has been an ongoing turf war in which uniformed officers have generally been at the receiving end, but the highest political leadership in the country, then what can smaller functionaries expect?!

    Like for the Lokpal bill, do we need public outrage/pressure for the government to see reason even in this?

    Cmde Ashok Sawhney
    sawhneyashok@gmail.com

    ReplyDelete
  7. The Army Chief's Year of Birth

    It would never occur to any General to get just a one year extension by claiming that his YOB as per Military Secretary's records was wrong, unless it is true. Would he risk his pension and all that he did in his 40 years of service going down the drain just to get that one year extra? In General VK Singh's case, apart from the matriculation certificate, the records of the military hospital where he was born point to the YOB as 1951 and not 1950.

    It did not occur to the MoD that this General might fight back. Confidently, MoD dug in its heels on the issue, however as a precautionary measure to dilute responsibility, it referred the case to the Ministry of law. It was a smart passing of the buck.
    The opinion of three former Chief Justices was ignored and the matter was referred to the Law Ministry in whose jurisprudence the MoD put its faith in. The experience of the Attorney General does not lie in being a fair judge but to win a case for the GOI at any cost. That justice should seem to be done does not bother our Attorney General. The Law ministry did not explore if earlier civilian heads of departments got an extension by claiming an updated YOB.
    The Chief daring the MoD is juicy news for the media. If this happened 50 years ago, when our democracy had yet to come of age, the media would have treaded carefully as a coup could have been triggered. With such a possibility receding to near zero over the years, and the Chiefs getting more pliant, the discussions on TV now are intended to entertain the couch potatoes happily digging into their popcorn bags.

    Some retired Generals and Air Marshals suggested that General VK Singh should resign first and then fight the case. It did not occur to them that once the Chief is removed from the centre stage, the TV watching jury will yawn and go to sleep. It never occurred to them that the Chief cannot turn tail now. Their notion of what is the "honourable thing to do" needs to be clarified.

    General VK Singh is supposed to have prepared a 500 page statutory complaint, which the MoD dismissed. The complaint was not so much as to convince the MoD but to prepare grounds for action in court.

    If the General accepts MoD's decision without contesting it, what will be the effect on our million-strong army? If the MOD backtracks, it will be perceived as dawning of wisdom. If the Chief goes to the court and looses in the court, he will pay a heavy price. If the MOD looses, the UPA, and not the babus, will lose face. The battle lines have been drawn and the Army will be watching as to who will blink first.

    Do we trust the security of our country to a "thorough gentleman" or someone who is not shy of fighting?

    Maj CN Anand

    http://ibnlive.in.com/blogs/cnanand/3068/63044/the-army-chiefs-year-of-birth.html

    ReplyDelete
  8. Dear Veterans,

    Some of the mails originated, in various Veterans' Groups, were based on the wrong information published by the media.

    However, the MOD, as per the interview of Salman Kurshid, is not contesting the veracity of any of the documents pertaining to the DOB of the Chief. Also, the Govt has not cast aspersions on the Chief's integrity and honesty, which it maintains is of a very high order and impeachable.

    As per the statements of the Law Minister, it seems the Govt could not uphold the Statutory Complaint of the Chief, only based on the fact that such requests for the amendments to the DOB of any Govt Servant should have been applied for, within a mandatory time limit of two years. The Govt, is on record having rejected many such requests from many Govt Servants, including the members of the Armed Forces, based on this stipulation. If it agrees with the Chief's request now, it will open the Pandora's Box. That is the reason, Salman Kurshid had said that the Rules cannot be bent for individual cases, for any reason.

    As per the Law Minister, the Govt is sticking to its gun and would face the legal challenge, if it is inevitable.

    Recently, a retired Brigadier, who is now practicing law in the Madras High Court, told me that many cases were rejected by the Govt purely based on the stipulation of time limit. Many of them are eagerly waiting for the outcome of the Court's verdict in this case, if at all the matter reaches that stage.

    Col (Retd) TN Raman

    ReplyDelete
  9. On Army Chief’s age, we had to go by rules: Khurshid,

    Union Law Minister Salman Khurshid has said that the Government had decided to reject the statutory complaint made by Army Chief VK Singh to correct his age because “there are rules by which we had to go by”.In an exclusive interview with the Editor-in-Chief of The Tribune, Raj Chengappa,Khurshid went on to explain, “Nobody in government thinks of Gen VK Singh as anything but the most outstanding Chief of Staff. I think he is held in very high esteem. I don’t think anyone believed that he has misrepresented the facts and he is not telling the truth as far as the facts are concerned. There are some facts, that are established and again these can be argued. Not all these facts relate to the actual rules that apply. Hard cases make bad law. There are rules by which we have to go by.”

    The Army Chief, in his complaint, had stated that his correct date of birth was May 10, 1951 and not 1950 as per Army records and had wanted it to be corrected.As to the reason why his Ministry advised the Defence Ministry to reject the Chief”s complaint, Khurshid said, “Not all rules are malleable or flexible to the extent of accommodating facts that are unanticipated. The thing about the rules is that you cannot keep changing them simply because in a particular case those rules give you an outcome that is not entirely to your satisfaction or entirely to the comfort of people involved. It is rules that have been interpreted in a manner which does not allow us to take a decision other than the decision that has been taken. I don’t want to comment any further.”

    In the wide-ranging interview, Khurshid admitted that it was a mistake to rush through the Lokpal Bill. He agreed that the Government acted under pressure of public expectations and public demonstrations and that it was a ‘bad idea’ to follow a tight timeline. “If you ask me now, that was a mistake. People were questioning our bonafides. Therefore, we went through with the tight timeline and I think it was a bad idea. We should not have tried to cut our losses: a more flexible timeline would have allowed us to do a much better job on all fronts,” said the Law Minister, adding that the ambiguities in the Bill will be taken care of before the next session of Parliament.

    Glossing over differences with ally Trinamool Congress, Khurshid said that Mamata Banerjee could not be expected to go along with the Bill without looking at all the implications. The Government would factor in her concerns, he added.

    “It may have been inconvenient to the Parliamentary Affairs Minister but that is not the end of the world,” said the Minister. Asked if he also thought the ‘minority quota’ in the Lokpal Bill to be a bad idea, he responded by saying, “Diversity is an idea, whose time has come; whether you like it or not, it is a part of the maturing of Indian democracy and the demands for diversity are growing”. The country needs to have an Equal Opportunity Commission, he felt.

    He pointed out, “Even the BJP, which may not have said yes, has not said no either.” Asked to comment on the prevailing view that the quota could be struck down by the courts, Khurshid said that though he was aware that ‘reservation’ for OBCs did not extend to institutions like the Supreme Court, the High Court and the Lokpal, the courts are increasingly taking into account the changing and growing aspirations for diversity and he would rather have the apex court carry out a judicial review.

    Asked how corruption in the judiciary could be weeded out, Khurshid replied that the Judicial Accountability Bill would set standards and mechanisms to ensure that a ‘judge is thrown out long before he gets corrupt’. The Government did not want judges to appear before ‘a constable of the police’, he said.

    Tribune News Service

    ReplyDelete
  10. Dear Friends,

    I have seen the video. I do not have the full details (including hidden areas/back office events).

    Querries / views are:-

    1. Was VKS entitled to join the NDA, if the DOB is 1951.

    2. Why did he agree to accept 1950 when the COAS asked. This shows his lack of confidence and that he is an opportunist.

    3. Sukhna case relates to a private land not owned by the Army. He is the initiator/catalyst of that case to settle his personal egos and did not think of the bad name he brought to the Army.
    4. He is using his office to settle his personal case which is unbecoming of an officer. He must resign & then fight it out in the civil courts.

    5. The newspapers have already announced that the Govt have shown a red carrot to VKS to make him Governor or Ambassador, thus silencing him for ever.

    We, the retired Defence Community, must pressurise VKS to resign immediately lest he brings further bad name to the Defence Forces. This may also be a pointer to the other Service Chiefs.

    Col Shivraj, New Delhi
    colshivraj@gmail.com

    ReplyDelete
  11. 10-1-2012
    Dear Editor and all
    Gen VK Singh was born on 10 May 1951 in military hospital, Pune and the same was entered in the service record of his father (14 Rajput). Date of birth in his school leaving certificate is 10 May 1951. At the time of filling application forms for UPSC examination for entry into NDA his teacher, wrongly entered 10 May 1950 in stead of 10 May 1951 as date of birth. VK Singh was then 14 years old and without realizing this error, signed the application. He was eligible for entry into NDA in both the cases, (age 10 May 1950 and 10 May 1951).

    Before his interview at the Services Selection Board, school leaving certificate, letter from his father’s unit, indicating his date of birth as 10 May 1951 as well as police verification of age was sent to the UPSC. Based on this he was ‘provisionally’ allowed to join NDA: pending receipt of Board Examination Certificate. His NDA and IMA records reflected his date of birth as 10 May 1951.

    On commissioning, his unit sent Form No IAFZ-2041 to AG’s Branch and the same was done by I M A. In both the cases date of birth was noted as 10 May 1951. His original Board Certificate was forwarded to AGs Branch at Army HQ in April 1971 (within 2 years of commissioning). Status concerning date of birth was changed from ‘Provisional’ to ‘Permanent.’ However the Military Secretary’s branch did not correct its record.

    MS branch continued with the old argument that ‘change of date of birth’ could be carried out only within two years of commissioning.

    Para 136 t0 138 (C)of Defence Services Regulations for the Army reads as below:

    136.Detemination of Age on Enrolment:-
    ( A ) The age recorded in conformity with the date of birth given in the certificates mentioned below:-
    ( a ) In case of those who had passed Matriculation or equivalent examination:-
    ( i ) The Matriculation (or equivalent ) certificate if it shows the date of birth or exact age on any particular date.
    …………………………
    138. Alteration of Age.- The date of birth or apparent age recorded at the time of enrollment be held to be binding and no alteration or amendment thereto will be carried out except with the prior sanction of-
    ( I ) The Chief of the Army Staff in all cases of other ranks and in such cases of JCOs wherein change or alteration becomes necessary due to clerical error, involving no re adjustment of pay and allowances; and
    ....................
    ( C ) In case of personnel who have passed Matriculation or equivalent examination prior to the date of their enrolment, the date of birth as given in the Matriculation or equivalent certificate will invariably entered in the enrolment form. Where the date of birth recorded in the enrolment form is different from that shown in the Matriculation or equivalent certificate, Record Office concerned will irrespective of whether or not an individual had applied for a change in date of birth, take action to carry out necessary amendments in the enrolment form after obtaining the approval of the competent authority, to record the date of birth in conformity with the Matriculation/ equivalent certificate, provided that no cognizance shall be taken of the certificate of Matriculation/ equivalent examination produced by an individual two years after his enrolment.

    Only Army is like this where as in IAF Wg Cdr M Murugesan (Retd) )- date of birth changed from 08-04-1954 to 08-04-1955 after 12 years of commission and IN Cdr Varanasi (Retd)date of birth changed from 08-04-1954 to 08-04-1955 after 12 years of commission the date of births have been changed when the correction was taken up after 7 years of commission

    General VK Singh's case is peculiar where politicians, babus and few vested interested Army officers have put the Un doubted honur of the Army in debate.

    Colonel K Malaiappan (Retd)
    Chennai
    malli2121@yahoo.co.in

    ReplyDelete