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.