IMPORTANT POINT
Seeking a declaration through a writ under Article 32 of Constitution that Hon ble CJI was born on 1.11.1934 and not on 1.11.1936 for purposes of superannuation about which petitioner has no knowledge, nor even a scrap of paper and which was already determined by President of India to be 1.11.1936 known to petitioner but falsely representing it again is an abuse of the process of the Court and there is no fundamental right involved in such declaration and the same is liable to be dismissed in limine warranting issuance of show cause for offence under Sections 193 IPC for giving false evidence.

JUDGMENT

Thomas, J.-Heard the petitioner Mr. Karuppan who argued in person.

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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. Kapruppan either on behalf of the Madras High Court Advocates Association or using his name as President of the said Association.

5. 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.

6. 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.

7. 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?

8. 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 s