Supreme Court Dismisses Pleas To Review Rafale Deal Verdict
Supreme Court said review petitions challenging its judgment declining a probe in Rafale fighter jet deal were without any merit.
The Supreme Court dismissed the review petitions challenging its judgment declining a probe in the Rafale fighter jet deal, saying they were “without any merit”.
The review petitions were filed by Former Finance Minister Yashwant Sinha, Senior Journalist and Union Minister Arun Shourie and argued by Advocate Prashant Bhushan.
The petitioners challenged the Supreme Court’s judgment of December 2018 wherein it had declined to order registration of an FIR and an independent investigation in the India-France deal for procurement of Rafale jets.
The court also closed the contempt plea against Congress leader Rahul Gandhi for his remarks relating to the deal, adding that he should be careful in future.
The case is one of the few instances where the Supreme Court has heard a review petition in an open court. The petitioners challenge to Supreme Court's Rafale verdict mainly rests on the new set of documents which they sought to introduce in the hearing, arguing that they reveal the irregularities in the deal.
These documents were revealed as part of the investigative reporting by N Ram of The Hindu. The government argued that these documents were stolen from the Defence Ministry and hence, should not be allowed to be part of the hearing.
A report by The Hindu said three of the seven members of the negotiating committee in the Rafale deal had objected to the pricing of the jets. The petitioners also argued that the government had misrepresented certain facts during the main hearing, including a false claim that the Comptroller and Auditor General of India’s clean chit report to the government had been placed in Parliament.
The government in the review petition filed a “correction application” on the arguments of the CAG report being presented in Parliament.
The Attorney General at one point of the hearing argued that the documents were protected under the Official Secrets Act and the publishers were guilty of criminal offences by putting the documents out in the open.
The Attorney General also argued that the government is contemplating action against the guilty parties, including The Hindu newspaper. N Ram in a conversation with BloombergQuint defended his and The Hindu’s reporting on the Rafale deal. However, after a public outrage, the Attorney General clarified that the government is not contemplating any action on the media houses that published these documents.
The Attorney General said the documents were marked “secret” under the Official Secrets Act and no other law, including the Right to Information Act, can allow the publication of such records. He also said the Rafale deal was a government-to-government argument which is why they cannot reveal details such as pricing and this was the reason even the CAG was asked to redact such information.
The Supreme Court, however, ruled that they will consider the documents which are being sought to be presented by the petitioners and resumed hearing the review petitions.