The press report based on which the defamation case was filed, was to rebut the media story about the TSD deploying the air interceptors to snoop on the MOD bureaucrats and politicians. Strangely, no one seems to be questioning as to which organisation had deployed the interceptors and on whose orders. This issue does not seem to have been investigated and no answers on the mystery are forthcoming. In the meanwhile, another report appeared in the media alleging that Lt Gen Tejinder Singh had unauthorisedly entered into the area of TSD with a reporter of an English daily and the army sources seem to have confirmed the report but had said that they were not planning any legal action. The question is: Is this story true? If yes, why was the officer seen in that area? And if not, why did the newspaper publish the story? Strangely, snooping, the raison d’ etre for the Army’s press release seems to have been forgotten and the bribe issue, which is already under investigation by the CBI, has taken centre- stage in the defamation case. Shouldn’t the courts demand that an investigation be carried out on the snooping issue and monitor it to its logical conclusion in the interest of democracy and its attendant values which the country cherishes? The defamation issue will automatically get clarified when the puzzle of the snooping exercise is solved.
Recently, media reports have appeared suggesting that the CBI who was investigating the alleged bribe case, was planning to file a closure report on the grounds that the evidence provided by General VK Singh was not enough to prove bribery charges against Lt Gen Tejinder Singh. What evidence was expected from the General when the Lt Gen had met the Chief in his office in private? The message is unambiguous to future bribe givers and bribe takers. If you complain of someone offering bribes, there is no way the matter can be investigated, proved and the individual punished. On the other hand, you can be taken to the courts and hounded. As for the bribe giver, in future one can walk up to anyone and test the waters by offering a bribe for a favour without any hesitation. Can there be any other interpretation to the subtle message?
When the defamation case came up for hearing, the Metropolitan Magistrate Jay Thareja, while issuing summons to General VK Singh and four others, rejected the allegation of criminal conspiracy, saying that it was absurd and without any foundation. He further went on to state that “the accused are only being summoned qua offence described under section 499 (defamation) read with section 35 (criminal intention) of the Indian Penal Code.” It therefore raises a question shouldn’t the ministry of defence which goes to the court at the drop of a hat against the interests of soldiers and veterans not have defended the press release to prevent the defamation case being admitted? Should the defamation case have been admitted in the first place?
See the behaviour of the complainant in the court violating all norms of decency and the harassment to someone whose only fault was to complain that he was offered a bribe.
The Metropolitan Magistrate (MM) Mr Sudesh Kumar decided not to hear the case stating that the “Counsel Anil Kumar Aggarwal (appearing for Tejinder Singh) has exhibited lack of confidence over the court and the manner in which he tried to dictate to this court as to what is required to be mentioned in the proceeding and as what type of enquiry this court has to make, reflects his (complainant’s) lack of faith in this court.” In a subsequent hearing when the General came to the court and sat in the chair, the council was reportedly shouting at the judge to make the General stand up.
All the five officers were granted bail by the court. When it came to hearing, the serving officers of the army, who were represented by the government lawyer, were exempted from personal appearance while the case regarding exemption to General VK Singh, represented by his lawyer, was kept in abeyance. As per General VK Singh’s statement in a media interview, when questioned, the judge had remarked that he did not press for the exemption. Press what? What does that mean? When four out of the five charged in a case with defamation were granted exemption from personal appearance, why not the fifth one?
T
he study indicates a number of wrong things which ought not to have happened. Every time something went wrong, an investigation was announced. But till date, none of the investigations seem to have fructified. No one seems to have been punished. Why? Are our investigating agencies all that inefficient? Or are we trying to hide facts which are unpalatable?
This is the first case in the history of independent India where a COAS has been charge-sheeted in a court. What is his fault? He decided to expose corruption and someone who offered him a bribe right inside his office. See the level the country has stooped to. Had the General been corrupt, by now the powers that be would have made sure that he was in jail. Is this a reward for being honest? Should the General have kept quiet and allowed the game to continue considering that even with his proactive approach nothing has happened to anyone till now?