Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3
CASE NO.:
Writ Petition (civil) 77 of 2001
PETITIONER:
MADRAS HIGH COURT ADVOCATES ASSOCIATION
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
DR. A.S. ANAND, HON. THE CJI AND ANR.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 14/02/2001
BENCH:
K.T. Thomas, R.P. Sethi & B.N. Agrawal.
JUDGMENT:
L...I...T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T..J
Thomas, J.
Heard the petitioner Mr. Karuppan who argued in person.
This writ petition is filed under Article 32 of the
Constitution of India to determine the age of the present
Chief Justice of India Dr. Justice A.S. Anand by declaring
that he was born on 1.11.1934, and then to declare that he
had attained the age of superannuation on 31.10.1999 and
consequently to issue a writ of quo warranto against him.
The petitioner is described as the Madras High Court
Advocates Association. The writ petition is filed by R.
Karuppan as petitioner-in-person who has also sworn to an
affidavit stating that the facts contained in the writ
petition are true to his knowledge and that no part of it is
false and nothing material is concealed therefrom.
In the meanwhile, the Registry of this Court received a
petition from some persons describing themselves to be the
members of the Madras High Court Advocates Association
which is signed by 76 persons who claim to be members of the
said Association. In that petition it is stated that Madras
High Court Advocates Association had not taken any decision
to file any Writ Petition or to initiate any other
proceedings against the Chief Justice of India. It is
requested therein that the Supreme Court shall not entertain
any petition filed by Sri R.Karuppan either on behalf of the
Madras High Court Advocates Association or using his name
as President of the said Association.
We do not propose to take any heed to the said petition,
as the same has not been properly filed in this Court. We
proceed to consider the Writ petition, as we may assume that
this Writ Petition was filed by Sri R.Karuppan on behalf of
the said Association. Even otherwise since Sri R.Karuppan
is entitled to file a Writ Petition on his own in his
individual capacity as well, we are bound to consider it
judicially.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3
After reading the averments and the reliefs prayed for
in the writ petition and after hearing the arguments made at
length by Mr. Karuppan in support of them, we have no
hesitation to say that this writ petition is an abuse of the
process of the court. Apart from the non-disclosure of what
fundamental right of the petitioner has been infringed or to
be enforced through this writ petition, it is a reckless
action to malign and scandalise the highest judicial
institution of this country.
The writ petition contains many statements which are ex
facie false. Petitioner knows very well that the President
of India has determined the dispute in 1991 concerning the
age of Dr. Justice A. S. Anand even when he was judge of
a High Court. We asked Mr. Karuppan to show us the
document which he came across for making the demand that the
date of birth of Dr. Justice A.S. Anand should be declared
as 1st November, 1934. In spite of repeatedly putting the
question he was not able to point out even one paper in
which the date of birth of the first respondent is shown as
1st November, 1934. On the other hand, we invited the
attention of the petitioner to a document which he produced
as the true copy of the matriculation certificate issued by
the Registrar of the University of Jammu and Kashmir on
1.9.1951. That certificate has shown without the slightest
ambiguity that the date of birth of first respondent is
1.11.1936. We pointed out to the petitioner that he has
affirmed in his own affidavit sworn to by him that the said
document is the true copy of its original. To the query the
petitioner had nothing to answer. We were anguished at the
temerity by which he has chosen to approach this Court for
seeking a declaration that a high Constitutional functionary
like the CJI was born on 1st November, 1934, about which he
has no knowledge, nor even a scrap of paper. Then why did
he file this writ petition?
When the same R. Karuppan, Advocate, argued in this
Court in defence of a contemnor S.K. Sundaram (against whom
contempt proceedings were initiated pursuant to his sending
a telegram asking the Chief Justice of India to step down
from office on the ground that he had already attained the
age of 65, and then his filing a criminal complaint against
the CJI) this Court by its Judgment dated 15.12.2000
pronounced in unmistakable terms thus:
Once the age of Dr. Justice A.S. Anand was so
determined by the President of India in exercise of his
constitutional authority, in whom alone is the power reposed
to determine the question of the age of a judge of the High
Court, it was not open to this contemnor to raise this
question over again and again. When this contemnor once
again raised the question of the age of Dr. Justice A.S.
Anand, in the year 1999, the Government of India issued a
press communication which, after referring to the earlier
proceedings adopted by the President of India, has stated
thus: This plea was again rejected on the ground that
there was no basis for reopening the matter. The decision
of the President is final under Article 217 of the
Constitution.
Now Mr. Karuppan made averments in the present writ
petition that the petitioner submits that the dispute which
has arisen as early as in 1991, undetermined by the
President and the operation of Article 217 is still
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3
operative and within the jurisdiction of the President. He
further averred that the petitioner submits that the
conduct of the President of India, ever since the
controversy arose till date only proves that the dispute has
never been determined by him or his predecessor. He further
averred that the press note released by the Government of
India to the Press Information Bureau on 23rd October, 2000,
reached the notice of the petitioner only after 23.11.2000.
In the context of this statement he concealed the fact that
copy of the said press note was included in the files of the
contempt proceedings initiated against S.K. Sundaram as
early as 7.11.2000. Mr. Karuppan admitted before us that
he himself appeared in this Court as Advocate for S.K.
Sundaram on 20.11.2000.
The above averments are ex facie false and they are
stated in the writ petition by R. Karuppan knowing them to
be false.
We dismiss this writ petition in limine.
In our view the deponent Mr. R. Karuppan had made the
above false statement in the writ petition intentionally for
the purpose of being used in the judicial proceeding. We,
therefore, require him to show cause why prosecution
proceedings shall not be initiated against him for offence
under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code. If his
explanation does not reach this Court before 28.2.2001, we
would treat that he has no explanation to offer in the
matter. Further action on this will be decided after
28.2.2001.
( K.T. Thomas )
( R.P. Sethi )
( B.N. Agrawal )
New Delhi;
February 14, 2001.
All that he could point out was a letter purported to
have been written by one S. Behr to a solicitors firm
Sohal & Co. in which a mention is made that Adarsh Sein
Anand was enrolled as a student member of Inner Temple on
4.1.1962 and at that time he gave his year of birth as 1934.
At the same time the petitioner produced a letter written by
the Chairman of the Bar of England and Wales dated 2.11.2000
in which the said Chairman has written in unambiguous
language that Inner Temple records show that the date of
birth of Adarsh Sein Anand is 1st November, 1936, which was
the date given by A.S. Anand in a form in his own hand
writing bearing his signature.