Madras High Court judge expresses discontent over incorrect information provided by Army officials

In pursuit of justice, one Muthukrishnan filed a petition in 2019, urging the cancellation of the aforementioned notification and the issuance of a fresh notification in compliance with the rules to select soldiers. The case had already reached the courtroom, and notices were served to the Central Defense Secretary, Principal Army Officer, and others involved in the case, as per the court's orders.

Madurai (Tamil Nadu): In a recent development, a branch judge of the Madras High Court expressed dissatisfaction with the accuracy of information provided by officials responsible for the country's security.

The case in question stemmed from a petition filed by Muthukrishnan from the Tirunelveli district. Muthukrishnan had applied for the position of a soldier as per the Indian Army's notification dated February 24, 2018. He diligently participated in all the requisite eligibility tests, successfully passed the fitness test and the written examination.

However, when the results were published on July 29, 2018, only 22 names were listed as selected candidates, and Muthukrishnan's name was conspicuously absent. In response to his inquiry regarding his exclusion, Army officials claimed that there were no vacancies. This response left Muthukrishnan perturbed, as the Indian Army's notification had not provided details on the number of available positions and the number of individuals to be selected for the role.

In pursuit of justice, Muthukrishnan filed a petition in 2019, urging the cancellation of the aforementioned notification and the issuance of a fresh notification in compliance with the rules to select soldiers. The case had already reached the courtroom, and notices were served to the Central Defense Secretary, Principal Army Officer, and others involved in the case, as per the court's orders.

During the recent hearing presided over by Justice Pattu Devanand, the counsel representing the Centre submitted a statement in a sealed envelope. After perusing the contents, Justice Devanand expressed strong discontent, stating, "All the information provided by the public prosecutor to the court is incorrect. Misleading information has been conveyed in a sealed envelope. Not all officials have provided accurate information. In fact, some officials have not provided accurate information to the court."

In response, the Union Public Prosecutor asserted that the information contained in the computer records had been presented to the court, and the same pattern was followed across the entirety of India.

Justice Devanand, however, remained unconvinced and questioned whether officials responsible for the country's security could furnish false information. He emphasized the gravity of security matters and criticized the current system. The judge indicated that an appropriate order would be issued in the case and adjourned the judgment without specifying a date.

The case now stands as a testament to the need for transparency and accuracy in information provided by officials entrusted with the security of the nation.