SC frames charges against advocate for threatening CJI

SC frames charges against advocate for threatening CJI
PRESS TRUST OF INDIA

NEW DELHI, NOV 21: Taking a serious view of the threat a Chennai advocate gave to the Chief Justice of India (CJI) while questioning his age, the Supreme Court today framed contempt charges against him after Solicitor General of India produced documents to show CJI’s date of birth as November 1, 1936.

A bench comprising Justice K.T. Thomas and Justice R.P. Sethi framed contempt charges against the advocate S.K. Sundaram, who had in a telegram threatened to initiate criminal proceedings if the Chief Justice A.S. Anand did not step down from his post on the ground that his year of birth was 1934 and that he had already attained the age of superannuation.

The bench granted time till Monday as requested by the advocate-contemnor to reply to the documents submitted by Solicitor General Harish Salve and directed him to be present in court on November 27. A letter from Chief Executive of the general council of the Bar in England, Niall Morison to Salve said,‘‘According to the original documents the date of birth of Dr Anand given in those documents was November 1, 1936.’’

Referring to 1934 given as the year of birth of Justice Anand by one S. Behr to a solicitor firm in England, which was cited by former Law minister Ram Jethmalani to question the ‘‘real age’’ of CJI, Morison said,‘‘Information on the date of birth given by Behr to Sohul and co was incorrect.’’

Morison said,‘‘The letter of September 4 reproduced at Annexure II on page 149 of the book ‘‘Big egos, small men’’ by Ram Jethmalani is not identical to the copy we hold and Behr does not believe it was sent in the form that it appears at Annexure II.’’

Salve said that the contemnor advocate has already executed his threat by filing a criminal complaint before a Chennai court, which had dismissed the same on November 10. He said the conduct of Sundaram has to be viewed in the background of his previous activities in this regard and added he had filed a petition in the Madras High Court on the issue of Justice Anand’s age. The petition was dismissed as frivolous by the high court, he added.

The Solicitor General said the documents relied on for fanning the controversy over CJI’s age ‘‘are not an innocent error but a systematic attempt to bring the Indian judiciary into ridicule’’.