Row over CGI’s age — SC dismisses Jethmalani’s plea

The court had initiated suo motu contempt proceedings against Chennai-based advocate S K Sundaram on the basis of his telegraphic threat to the Chief Justice of India.

"We do not find any good reason for Jethmalani’s intervention in the proceedings," the court said while dismissing the application.

The court had also referred to a Constitution bench the writ petition filed by Jethmalani questioning the court’s order for a CBI probe into the document given by General Council of Bar in England which showed the year of birth of Justice Anand, who did his doctorate in law from Inner Temple, as 1934.

Appearing for Jethmalani, senior advocate Shanti Bhushan had submitted before the bench that there was no doubt about the genuineness of the document as the chairman of the General Council Jonathan Hirst said the record with them showed the year of birth of CJI as 1934.

He said the CJI’s year of birth may be 1936 but the document annexed to the book was genuine as the mistake might have been committed by the General Council.

The suo motu contempt proceedings were initiated by a Division Bench on the basis of "intemperate and threatening" language used by Sundaram in his telegram to CJI asking him to step down or face criminal proceedings.

The Bench on November 27 had said "on a perusal of the documents produced by Solicitor General Harish Salve, we feel, prima facie, that the document purported to have been sent by the General Council of Bar, London, on September 4, 2000 to Sohul & Co is not a genuine document as it speaks only about the year of birth of CJI."

Following direction from the Supreme Court, the CBI formally began probe into a case of alleged forgery registered by Delhi Police, concerning a document which showed the year of birth of Chief Justice of India A S Anand as 1934 as against Government documents recording the same as 1936.

On the transfer of the case from police to CBI as per a Supreme Court direction, the CBI re-registered the case under Sections 465 (forgery) and 469 (forging to harm reputation) November 29.