Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:

• Case Details: The case is Union of India v. Jyoti Prakash Mitter, Civil Appeal No. 52 of 1968, decided by the Supreme Court of India on January 21, 1971. The appellant was represented by Mr. Jagadish Swarup (Solicitor General of India), and the respondent appeared in person. (!)
• Background of Dispute: The respondent, a High Court Judge, had declared different dates of birth at various stages (1901, 1904). The Government of India initiated an enquiry upon learning his true date of birth was December 27, 1901. (!) (!) (!)
• Legal Framework: The Constitution (Fifteenth Amendment) Act, 1963, added Clause (3) to Article 217, stating that questions regarding the age of a High Court Judge shall be decided by the President after consultation with the Chief Justice of India, and such a decision shall be final. This amendment had retrospective effect from January 26, 1950. (!) (!) (!) (!)
• Procedural History: After the Supreme Court held that the President's 1961 order was not a valid decision under Article 217(3) due to lack of procedure and natural justice, the President was asked to determine the age again. The President, after consulting the Chief Justice of India, decided the respondent was born in 1901. (!) (!) (!)
• Challenge in High Court: The respondent challenged the President's order in the High Court, arguing it was not a decision under Article 217(3) because the President acted on the advice of the Home Minister and Prime Minister, did not give a personal hearing, and did not exercise independent judgment. The High Court granted a certificate under Article 132(1). (!) (!) (!) (!)
• Supreme Court's Findings on Consultation: The Supreme Court held that the President did consult the Chief Justice of India as required. The consultation involved the Chief Justice reviewing the evidence and submitting advice, which the President accepted. The involvement of the Home Minister and Prime Minister in forwarding the file was an administrative irregularity but did not vitiate the order. (!) (!) (!)
• Supreme Court's Findings on Natural Justice and Hearing: The Court ruled that while natural justice is paramount, Article 217(3) does not guarantee a right to a personal oral hearing. The President is not bound to grant one but must provide an opportunity to make representations. The President had given ample opportunities for written representations and disclosure of evidence. (!) (!)
• Standard for Judicial Interference: The Court established that while the President's decision is final, the Supreme Court can set it aside if:
  • It was based on collateral evidence or no evidence.
  • It was against natural justice.
  • It was colored by the advice of the executive.
  • It was founded on no evidence. However, the Court will not sit in appeal or determine the weight of evidence. (!) (!)
• Outcome: The appeal filed by the Union of India was allowed, upholding the President's decision that the respondent was born on December 27, 1901. (!) (!)