PIL asks SC to nix Army Chief pick

It has alleged fraud in the appointment of new chief

The Centre was charged with “misrepresenting facts” and playing “fraud” before the Supreme Court during the hearing on a PIL challenging the appointment of Gen Bikram Singh as Army chief.

A group of eminent citizens, whose plea was rejected on April 23, now wants the apex court to reconsider its order.

They had questioned the appointment of Singh as Chief of Army Staff (COAS) on the ground that he faced inquiry for failing to control and command his troops — which indulged in sexual misconduct — during their posting at Congo as part of the UN peace keeping force in 2008.

The petitioners including Admiral (retired) L Ramdas and former Chief Election Commissioner N Gopalaswami also contended that Singh faced Court of Inquiry in Meerut and a criminal proceeding before the Jammu and Kashmir High Court relating to encounter killings.

During the hearing before a bench of Justices R M Lodha and H L Gokhale, Attorney General and Solicitor General stated that Gen Singh could not be blamed for the incidents of sexual misconduct by the Indian troops as he was the “deputy force commander” on “the payroll of the UN” and an “international civil servant”.

This stand of the government was trashed by the petitioners in their review petition.
They also alleged that the government had produced the “doctored” and not the original Appointment Committee of the Cabinet (ACC) file before the apex court as it contained a “page 15 A” instead of having running number of pages.

“The petitioners firmly believe that it is possible that the “original ACC file” was not shown to this Hon’ble Court, and this doubt arises because of two reasons: (a) MoD’s counter-affidavit denying the ‘fake encounter’ was filed in the J & K High Court (yet to be accepted by the court) only on March 23 but this document appears to be part of the ACC file shown to the court and (b) it was only on April 13 that the MoD sent query to the Army HQ seeking clarification on the ‘role and responsibility of Deputy Force Commander/Division Commander, MONUC  during August 2007-August 2008 (which Maj Gen Bikram Singh was). How the same could have been placed before the ACC by the Ministry of Defence and how the IB/some other agency could have given any clearance on these two matters before notification of his appointment which is dated March 3,” the petition alleged.

The “deliberate misrepresentation” was apparent from the fact on April 23 — when the petition was listed for hearing — it was submitted that Singh was only an international civil servant and had no operational responsibilities. The Army Headquarter had, in fact, replied back only on April 24 a day after the PIL was disposed “nailing the falsehood of the statement” made by spelling out the role of the division commander and deputy force commander, which are purely military in nature, the petition said.

The review petition also pointed out that the apex court “overlooked” the criterion laid down in PJ Thomas’ judgment, in which it was held that the “institutional integrity” should be of paramount consideration and one who failed to meet the criterion should not be recommended for appointment.

The petition also questioned the clearance given by the “Intelligence Bureau” to the appointment of Singh contending, “it did not and could not have the jurisdiction and authority to give any such clearance on matters pending before a High Court and a Court of Inquiry.”