2001 (5) TMI 964 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Authorization to file the writ petition.
2. Determination of the Chief Justice of India's age.
3. Allegations of perjury against the respondent.

Summary:

Authorization to File the Writ Petition:
The respondent, claiming to be the President of the Madras High Court Advocate Association, filed a writ petition for the issuance of a writ of quo warranto against the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India. The Registry received a petition from several advocates alleging that the Association had not authorized the respondent to file the writ petition. The Court proceeded to consider the writ petition on the assumption that it was either filed on behalf of the Association or by the respondent in his individual capacity.

Determination of the Chief Justice of India's Age:
The respondent questioned the age of the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India, alleging that the age had not been determined by the President of India as required u/s 217 of the Constitution. The Court noted that the President had determined the age of Dr. Justice A.S. Anand as 1.11.1936 on 16.5.1991, based on various documents, including a matriculation certificate and a passport. The Court found that the respondent was aware of this determination during the contempt proceedings against S.K. Sundaram, where the respondent represented Sundaram.

Allegations of Perjury Against the Respondent:
The Court issued a notice to the respondent to show cause why prosecution proceedings should not be initiated against him for the offense u/s 193 of the Indian Penal Code. The respondent reiterated his submissions, claiming that he believed the President had not determined the age of the Chief Justice of India. The Court found that the respondent had made false statements in his affidavit, knowing them to be false or not believing them to be true, thus committing perjury. The Court emphasized the importance of maintaining the sanctity of affidavits and the need for stern action against perjury to preserve the integrity of the judicial system.

Conclusion:
The Court directed the Registrar General to depute an officer to file a complaint u/s 193 IPC against the respondent before a Magistrate of competent jurisdiction at Delhi and to take all necessary steps for prosecuting the complaint.