SC throws out PIL against next Army Chief,Govt calls it ‘communal sideshow’

“It is not just the two allegations (relating to) Congo and J&K,” Justice R M Lodha said,“in fact there were several allegations,including that his daughter-in-law is a Pakistani. They were collected from all sources. The committee has applied its mind to each one of them and given reasons on each.”

Dismissing the PIL,the court said its decision would have no bearing on any pending “legal or other petitions”.

The day-long hearing saw the petitioners,led by Admiral (retired) L N Ramdas — and clarifying that they were “not just busybodies” — raise many allegations against the Army chief-designate. The government objected to each one of them,and the court largely upheld their defence.

The Bench of Justices Lodha and H L Gokhale — that had also brokered peace in the General V K Singh age controversy — also abruptly stopped the petitioners from raking up the age row again. “There is no question of re-opening the General V K Singh matter. It has reached finality here,” Justice Lodha drew the line.

The petitioners accused the Lt General of being the product of a communally-engineered line of succession called ‘Op MOSES’,mentioned ‘langar talk’ and said former army chief J J Singh and powerful Sikh body Shiromani Gurdwara Parbhandak Committee (SGPC) had intervened to propel Bikram Singh to the top.

They accused Bikram Singh of having failed to control the excesses of his subordinates during a peacekeeping mission in Congo as well as talked of his alleged “direct” involvement in a fake encounter in Jammu and Kashmir.

Finally,they said,General V K Singh was a necessary pawn to make sure that Lt General Bikram Singh succeeded him in 2012.

Appearing for the Union of India,Attorney General (AG) G E Vahanvati accused the PIL of trying to bring in a “communal element” in the Army. “These malicious allegations had to be sifted to find some grain of truth in the petition. This Army has gone through a lot in the recent past,does it have to go through more? The SGPC has been brought in… the Sikh element is brought in…” Vahanvati submitted.

Solicitor General (SG) Rohinton Nariman said the petition was only trying to stir up the age row again. “The petition is mala fide,based on communal elements. It also somehow tries to rehash the age controversy. The rest is all sideshow,” Nariman said.

Nariman said the selection has to be among the seven Army commanders and the Vice-Chief,and all eight are treated at par. “There is complete transparency. Entire service record is placed before the Cabinet. Seniority criterion is followed,” the SG told the court.

“The record of 40 years’ service is placed on record. Is it disputed here that he is senior most?” Vahanvati asked.

The court agreed that this could not be allowed.

When Kamini Jaiswal,appearing for the petitioners,talked of a policy being evolved in 2005 by General J J Singh,now the Arunachal Pradesh governor,basically to accommodate “this one person” — Bikram Singh — the Supreme Court refused to swallow the theory.

“There were several persons affected. Statutory complaints were filed by some,but they did not go beyond that when these complaints were dismissed,” Justice Lodha pointed out.

On the J&K encounter accusation,the court found that even the pending petition filed by the family of the victim,Ahmed Bhat,does not allege that the Lt General was “directly” involved. It only accuses Bikram Singh of being part of the conspiracy to file an FIR of the encounter.

“A 70-year-old person was called a foreign terrorist and an FIR lodged to cover up the incident,” Jaiswal argued.

However,Justice Gokhale disagreed. “A colonel is shot dead. A jawan is killed. And you are saying that it is a fake encounter! One lieutenant is injured,and you call this a fake encounter! Madam Jaiswal,our officers are working in difficult situations,” he intervened,asking whether it could be a case of “wrong identity”.

Vahanvati submitted that Bikram Singh himself was shot in the back.

On the allegations against the Lt General regarding the Congo mission in 2008,the court asked Jaiswal whether she had any documents to support her allegations. “Mere allegations without documents would mean maligning our armed forces. Can a career of a person be put at stake on allegations?” Justice Gokhale said.

As per the allegation,a court of inquiry “on the involvement of Sikh troops in sexual escapades with local women” was suppressed by then Maj General Bikram Singh.

Justice Lodha pointed out from the Cabinet file that Bikram Singh was not,in fact,part of the Indian contingent posted in Congo but on “secondment” with the United Nations. “His job was as a civil servant with the UN. The UN staff rules applied to him. The Court of Inquiry at Meerut is going into the conduct of the Indian contingent alone,and he was not part of it,” Justice Lodha noted.

Advocate Prashant Bhushan,assisting Jaiswal,questioned the authenticity of the cabinet file itself,saying the Cabinet had been misled on a “technicality”.