MY KOLKATA EDUGRAPH
ADVERTISEMENT
Regular-article-logo Tuesday, 20 May 2025

General Vs General: SC advances hearing of plea against Dalbir Singh

Read more below

The Telegraph Online Published 19.06.14, 12:00 AM

New Delhi, Jun 19 (PTI): The Supreme Court on Thursday agreed to give early hearing on a plea challenging appointment of Army Vice-Chief Dalbir Singh Suhag as the next Army Chief and directed listing of the case in the second week of July.

A bench headed by Justice Vikramajit Sen advanced the hearing of the case from September to July after it was submitted that Lt Gen Singh (who prefers not to use the surname Suhag) is to take over the charge from August 1 and the controversy over his appointment needs to be settled before that.

The court was hearing a plea filed by Lt Gen Ravi Dastane alleging favouritism in the selection of Lt Gen Dalbir Singh as the next Army Chief.

Earlier, the Centre had justified the appointment and had submitted that the alleged lapses cited as grounds to impose disciplinary ban on Lt Gen Dalbir Singh by then Army Chief General V.K. Singh between April and May 2012 were ”premeditated”, “vague” and “illegal”.

Gen. Singh, who is a now Minister of State in the National Democratic Alliance government, had placed Lt Gen Dalbir Singh under a disciplinary and vigilance (DV) ban.

The ban was imposed for alleged “failure of command and control” in an operation carried out by an intelligence unit working directly under him when he was commander of the Dimapur-based 3 Corps.

In its last days in office, the United Progressive Alliance government had named Lt Gen Dalbir Singh as the Army Chief to succeed incumbent Gen Bikram Singh when he retires on July 31.

The Ministry of Defence, in a recent affidavit filed in the apex court registry, has said, “The alleged lapses observed by the then COAS, as reflected in show cause notice, were premeditated and issued in utter disregard to the legal provisions governing the court of inquiry, principles of natural justice....the lapses were vague, based on presumptions and legally and factually not maintainable.”

Follow us on:
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT