President's determination final, says Supreme Court

By Our Legal Correspondent

NEW DELHI, NOV. 27. The Supreme Court today made it clear that the President's determination of the age of a High Court Judge was final and that there could be no further enquiry into this question.

A Bench comprising Mr. Justice K.T. Thomas and Mr. Justice R.P. Sethi said that under Article 271 (3) of the Constitution, the President was the only authority having jurisdiction to decide that question and that the same had been decided by the (then) President (when Dr. Justice Anand was the Chief Justice of the Madras High Court) as per the order dated May 16, 1991. ``Hence the finality attained on that question is a reality,'' the Bench said.

Concerned over the controversy over the CJI age issue, the Bench directed the Registrar (Judicial) of the Apex Court to forward a complaint appended with relevant documents to the Station House Officer (of Tilak Marg police station) for registering the FIR.

The Bench said that after the FIR was registered, the SHO shall forward the same to the CBI, the Bench said and made it clear that it was open to the CBI to conduct investigation into any other allied documents now produced or would be seized by the investigating agency during the course of the investigation.

The court said that on completion of the investigation, the CBI shall submit a final report to the appropriate court with and a copy forwarded to the Supreme Court as expeditiously as possible, preferably within three months.

The Bench granted time till tomorrow to the Chennai- based lawyer, Mr. S.K. Sundaram to file the necessary annexures referred to in his counter-affidavit to the suo motu contempt proceedings initiated against him for sending a telegram to the CJI asking him to step down.

In his counter, the contemnor-advocate, Mr. Sundaram, submitted that ``he holds the Judges of the Supreme Court as an object of veneration and worship. While so actuated by considerations to vindicate the majesty of the rule of law and to safeguard the interest of the very institution he had sent the telegram and followed it with a criminal complaint''.

While tendering his unqualified apology, Mr. Sundaram said that contempt would arise only on adducing satisfactory proof that the date of birth of the CJI was beyond any dispute. For, on the relevant date of sending the telegram and the contempt petition if it was found that due to superannuation, the CJI was not competent to hold the office, then the action for criminal contempt would not be maintainable, he said.

Referring to the contemnor-advocate who was present in the court, the Bench in its order said ``he filed a counter- affidavit. It refers to certain annexures but those annexures have not been produced. He sought time till tomorrow for producing those annexures and to address arguments,'' the Bench said and posted the case for tomorrow.

Turning to Mr. R. Karuppan, (President, Madras High Court Advocates Association), who sought permission to represent the contemnor-advocate, the Bench said ``at present he was not in a position to explain'' how he could represent as no advocate-on- record had taken appearance for Mr. Sundaram.

The Bench, however, said that ``it is also open to Mr. Karuppan tomorrow either to convince us that he has a right to address arguments on behalf of the alleged contemnor without the junction of an advocate-on-record or to avail himself of the services of an advocate-on-record in the matter''.

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : National
Previous : Help sought to nab Veerappan
Next     : Pak.-based outfits recruiting locals: BSF chief