At the end of two-and-a-half hour proceedings on Friday, the SC observed:

Gen VK Singh, Chief of the Army Staff, the petitioner, has approached this court under Article 32 of the Constitution challenging the order dated December 30, 2011, Memo dated 27.7.2011 and order dated 22.7.2011. By these orders, the petitioner’s DoB in the service records has been recognised as May 10, 1950.

The petitioner maintains that his DoB is in fact May 10, 1951 and must be treated as such for all purposes in the service record. A caveat has been filed on behalf of the respondent.

The matter initially came before us on Feb 3, 2012. In the course of the hearing, certain issues cropped up, principally concerning the decision-making process leading to the order dated Dec 30, 2011. The matter was adjourned for today. As soon as the hearing commenced today, the AG handed over to us a sworn affidavit filed by KL Nandwani, Deputy Secretary in the Ministry of Defence, on behalf of the respondent.

The affidavit is taken on record. It is stated in the affidavit that the order dated December 30, 2011 may be treated as confined to the order holding that the statutory complaint filed by the petitioner was not maintainable.

The second part of that order has been sought to be withdrawn. Now since the second part of the order of December 30, 2011 which deals with the merits of the adverse contentions raised in the statutory complaint have been withdrawn, the petitioner cannot be said to have any grievance concerning that part of the order.

The principal controversy accordingly now remains to the challenge to the memo of July 21, 2011 and the order dated July 22, 2011. By the memo of July 21, the respondent has annulled the order issued by the ADG dated Feb 25, 2011 and has reiterated that the petitioner’s official DoB will continue to be maintained as May 10, 1950. The order of 22.7.2011 that followed the office memo of July 21, 2011, while maintaining that the petitioner's official DoB continues to be maintained as May 10, 1950, declared that there was no reason for the government to consider effecting any change in the DoB of the officer as recorded.

We have heard UU Lalit, senior counsel for the petitioner, and AG GE Vahanvati and SG Rohinton Nariman. In the course of the hearing, the AG stated that the respondent, the Union of India, had not questioned the integrity or bonafide of the petitioner. He also stated that the contest of this petition by the respondent is on a matter of principle and it did not reflect any lack of faith or confidence in the petitioner’s ability to lead the Army.