By withdrawing the petition he had filed in the Supreme Court, challenging the Union Government’s decision not to alter his date of birth as it exists on record, Army chief General VK Singh has done the most honourable thing befitting a soldier of his stature and integrity. True, the Supreme Court did make it abundantly clear that it would not entertain his plea and gave him the option of withdrawing the petition, but that does not in any manner diminish Gen Singh’s prestige or the high esteem in which he is held within and outside the Defence Services.
As the Supreme Court, while urging Gen Singh to continue in his post (from which he is scheduled to retire in May this year), has pointed out, its order upholding the Government’s decision to stick by the date of birth on record and not amend it as desired by the Army chief, should not come in the way of his “commitment to the nation” which he has served with distinction for 38 years. The Bench which dealt with the petition has been fulsome in its praise of Gen Singh’s meritorious service while underscoring the fact that his “bona fide is beyond doubt”.
Indeed, the Supreme Court has spoken for the nation by telling Gen Singh: “We take pride in having officers like you.” In a sense, by giving the Army chief the option to withdraw his petition, and Gen Singh opting to do so, the Supreme Court has brought the issue to the best possible closure. A protracted legal battle, with both sides seeking to prove their respective points, would have no doubt turned acrimonious and ugly.
Needless to say, that would have been both unfortunate and undesirable, not the least because of its impact on relations between the political establishment and the Defence Services. Worse, it would have had a deleterious effect on the morale of our men in uniform — never before has an Army chief and the Government slugged it out in a court of law.
The dispute over Gen Singh’s date of birth — the Government says it has to go by what exists on record; the Army chief says the recorded date is erroneous and should be corrected from May 10, 1950 to May 10, 1951 as per his school leaving certificate — should never have reached the courts. An amicable settlement would have been far better. This was not a dispute over the authority of the Army chief; neither were his abilities nor integrity ever in question.
Gen Singh is undoubtedly among the best who have occupied this high office. The dispute was essentially a clerical issue bound by rules and regulations. The Ministry of Defence cannot be faulted for insisting that it would go by the primary document, which is the rule applicable to every employee of the Government, as an exception would open the floodgates of similar requests across the board. At the same time, Gen Singh cannot be blamed for insisting that a correction is in order because rejecting his request would be tantamount to questioning his honesty and integrity, which even the Government affirms are beyond reproach.
The fault, if there is one, lies with the system that disallows revision of records even when an obvious error has been committed. The lesson that needs to be learned from this unhappy episode is that disputes of this nature should be resolved immediately instead of being allowed to fester till they become impossible to solve without bruising egos and hurting sentiments. But that is something for the future. At the moment, it is to be hoped that Gen Singh will remain the Army chief till his scheduled retirement.
