ORDER : General VK. Singh, the then Chief of the Army Staff, had filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India challenging the two orders and one office memorandum issued by the Central Government. By these orders and office memorandum, the petitioner's date of birth in the service record has been recognised as 10-5-1950. In the writ petition, the petitioner claimed that his date of birth is, in fact, 10-5-1951 and must be treated as such for all purposes in the service record. 2. The matter was initially heard on 3-2-2012 and then on 10-2-2012. On 10-2-2012, Mr. U.U. Lalit, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, argued at quite some length and then, after seeking instructions from him stated that the petitioner did not wish to press the writ petition and sought its withdrawal. The writ petition was, accordingly, disposed of as withdrawn observing as follows: "7. In the course of hearing, Mr. Goolam E. Vahanvati, learned Attorney General, stated that the respondent Union of India had not questioned the integrity or bona fides of the petitioner. He also stated that the contest by the respondent Union of India to the writ petition was on a matter of principle and it did not reflect any lack of faith or confidence in the petitioner's ability to lead the Army. 8. As a matter of fact, the question before us in the writ petition is not about the determination of actual date of birth of the petitioner, but it concerns the recognition of a particular date of birth of the petitioner by the respondent in the official service record. 9. In view of the statement made by Mr. Goolam E. Vahanvati, learned Attorney General, and the limited controversy in the writ petition as indicated above, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner does not wish to press the matter further and he seeks withdrawal of the writ petition." 3. The Sunday Express in its New Delhi Edn. on 22-9-2013 has published the statement made by General V.K. Singh (Retd.) to ANI. He is said to have told ANI as follows: ".....If the court can define the age of a rape victim on basis of his matriculation certificate, then why has the Supreme Court failed to decide my age despite checking and cross-checking my certificates? on 22-9-2013 has published the statement made by General V.K. Singh (Retd.) to ANI. He is said to have told ANI as follows: ".....If the court can define the age of a rape victim on basis of his matriculation certificate, then why has the Supreme Court failed to decide my age despite checking and cross-checking my certificates? If the superior judiciary of this country can believe the matriculation certificate, and say a rapist and a murderer is a juvenile. What happens to my certificate which has been checked, rechecked and carbon-dated over a period of time? Why? Why didn't they give a decision? Knowing fully well that they were not going to give a decision since people were pressurising them and asking them not to give it. So, the controversy was created." 4. Attributing motive to the members of the Bench amounts to scandalising the Court. Prima facie, the above statement of General V.K. Singh (Retd.) scandalises or in any case tends to scandalise this Court. It also lowers or tends to lower the authority of this Court which, prima facie, amounts to "criminal contempt" under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 read with Article 129 of the Constitution of India. This Court, therefore, takes cognizance of criminal contempt against General V.K. Singh (Retd.) and directs that notice be issued to him as to why he should not be committed to contempt of this Court. 5. Notice be also issued to the publisher of the Sunday Express, New Delhi Edn., dated 22-9-2013 for publishing the above statement of General V.K. Singh (Retd.). Notice is made returnable on 23-10-2013 at 2 p.m. 6. We request the learned Attorney General to assist the Court in the matter. The Registry may send intimation of this order to the learned Attorney General along with a paper book of Suo Motu Contempt Petition (Criminal) No. 9 of 2013.