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.