No notice to Centre,High Court tells Tejinder to approach Army

Justice Mukta Gupta noted that the defence ministry could not be directed to withdraw the press release since the ministry had clearly stated that the release “was not issued by them or after their approval”.

“In view of the fact that the press release was not issued by the Union of India,it cannot be directed to immediately disown or publicly withdraw this release. The contention of the petitioner is that Respondents 2 to 6 (Army Chief and four others) exceeded their jurisdiction and defamed him by issuing the release and hence disciplinary action should be taken against them. It may be noted that disciplinary action is part and parcel of the disciplinary authority. In case a representation is made by the petitioner,concerned authority can take disciplinary action in accordance with the law,” Justice Gupta said while disposing of the petition.

While dictating the order,the court refused to accept the argument by Tejinder Singh’s lawyer Anil K Aggarwal that the competent authority to take action against the Army Chief could only be the defence ministry. The March 5-6 release had alleged that reports of unauthorised surveillance of phones of defence ministry officials were “put out” in the media by Tejinder Singh,and accused him of offering bribes on behalf of Tatra and Vectra Ltd,which supply trucks to defence PSU BEML.

At the beginning of Thursday’s proceedings,Additional Solicitor General A S Chandhiok and advocate Neeraj Chaudhari raised questions over the maintainability of the petition as a writ petition.

“One of the prayers in the petition is to direct the government to withdraw the press release. How do the ministry withdraw a release issued by somebody in individual capacity? It is a service matter and departmental inquiry should take care of such matters. He has also invoked the jurisdiction of a magistrate in a criminal defamation complaint,” the ASG Chandhiok,appearing for the government,said.

As Aggarwal argued that the government and Army could not act like two distinct entities,the judge observed that when the ministry was disowning the issuance of the release,it could not be impleaded as a party in a writ petition.

“How could a writ petition be maintainable if some Army officials act not in discharge of their official duties? How could a writ court issue notices without going into the facts of the case? There is no dispute that it is a service matter and the remedy should be before a disciplinary authority,” Justice Gupta said.

Aggarwal told The Indian Express that his client intended to appeal the order in the Supreme Court. “But that may take some time in its preparation and we would have a very strong case against the high court’s order,” he said.

Meanwhile,a Delhi magisterial court adjudicating Tejinder Singh’s criminal defamation complaint is expected to take up a fresh plea by him on Friday. Aggarwal has sought to put some additional evidence on record in the case. The magistrate had on the last date held that the press release was prima facie “defamatory” in nature since it was “false and injurious qua the character and his reputation”.

Metropolitan Magistrate Jay Thareja has summoned by June 6 records from the secretary,Ministry of Defence,to examine if all five could prima facie be said to be in a conspiracy over the publication of the release. The magistrate noted that the records disclosed that the respondents (Army Chief and others) “have issued the press release in violation of Section 21 of the Army Act,Rule 21 of Army Rules and the Defence Technical Publicity Rules.”