• +91 9632247247
  • Sign In/Sign Up
  • Menu
  • +Clients Back

    • Get Free Legal Answers
    • Get Fee Estimates
    • Find Lawyers
  • +Lawyers

    • Case Diary & Office Manager
    • Post News & Artilces
    • Post Jobs & Internships
  • +Law Students

    • Campus Ambassadors
    • Find Jobs & Internships
    • Post News & Articles
    • Resource Sharing
  • +Law Schools

    • Post Admissions
    • Post Opportunities
    • Get Law School Rating

  • Home
  • Post Articles
  • SC Dismisses Petitions Seeking Probe Into Rafale Deal

Latest Articles

Back

SC Dismisses Petitions Seeking Probe Into Rafale Deal

Courtesy/By: Sanjeev Sirohi  |  20 Dec 2018     Views:1683

In what has come as a big shot in the arm for the present ruling dispensation at the Centre led by PM Narendra Modi, the Supreme Court in its landmark judgment titled Manohar Lal Sharma vs Narendra Damodardas Modi & Ors in Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 225 of 2018 with W.P. (C) No. 1205/2018, W.P. (Crl) No. 297/2018 and W.P. (Crl) No. 298/2018 delivered on December 14, 2018 has dismissed a string of petitions seeking an independent probe into the 2015 Rafale deal, according it a clean chit in all respects – decision-making, pricing and procurement procedure. The Bench of Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi and Justices SK Kaul and KM Joseph pronounced this landmark, laudable and excellent judgment on a batch of PILs by Advocates ML Sharma, Vineet Dhanda, Prashant Bhushan and former Union Ministers Arun Shourie and Yashwant Sinha and AAP MP Sanjay Singh for registration of FIR and Court-monitored investigation by CBI into corruption allegations in Rafale deal. All petty politics must now stop over Rafale deal and what the highest court of the land has held so unambiguously must be respected by all of us including the petitioners!

                                          To begin with, para 1 sets the ball rolling by first and foremost pointing out that, “The issues arising in this group of writ petitions, filed as Public Interest Litigations, relate to procurement of 36 Rafale Fighter Jets for the Indian Airforce. The procurement in question, which has been sought to be challenged, has its origins in the post-Kargil experience that saw a renewed attempt to advance the strategic needs of the armed forces of the country.”

               In retrospect, para 2 then brings out that, “As far back as in the month of June of the year 2001, an in-principle approval was granted for procurement of 126 fighter-jets to augment the strength of the Indian Airforce. Simultaneously, a more transparent Defence Procurement Procedure (“DPP”) was formulated for the first time in the year 2002. A robust ‘offset clause’ was included in the DPP in the year 2005 so as to promote Indigenisation and to that effect Services Qualitative Requirements (“SQRs”) were prepared in June 2006. On 29th June 2007 the Defence Acquisition Council (“DAC”) granted the “Acceptance of Necessity” for the procurement of 126 Medium Multi Role Combat Aircrafts (for short “MMRCA”) including 18 direct fly-away aircrafts (equivalent to a single squadron) to be procured from the Original Equipment Manufacturer (“OEM”) with the remaining 108 aircrafts to be manufactured by Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (for short “HAL) under licence, to be delivered over a period of 11 years from the date of signing. The bidding process commenced in August 2007. Six (06) vendors submitted proposals in April 2008. The proposals were followed by technical and field evaluations; a Staff Evaluation Report and a Technical Oversight Committee Report. All these were completed in the year 2011. The commercial bids were opened in November, 2011 and M/s Dassault Aviation (hereinafter referred to as “Dassault”) was placed as the L-I sometime in January 2012. Negotiations commenced thereafter and continued but without any final result. In the meantime, there was a change of political dispensation at the centre sometime in the middle of the year 2014.”     

                          To be sure, para 3 then brings out that, “According to the official respondents negotiation continued. A process of withdrawal of the Request for Proposal in relation to the 126 MMRCA was initiated in March 2015. On 10th April, 2015 an Indo-French joint statement, for acquisition of 36 Rafale Jets in fly-away condition through an Inter-Governmental Agreement (hereinafter referred to as “IGA”), was issued and the same was duly approved by the DAC. The Request for Proposal for the 126 MMRCA was finally withdrawn in June 2015. Negotiations were completed after Inter-Ministerial Consultations with the approval of the Cabinet Committee on Security (for short “CCS”). The contract along with Aircraft Package Supply Protocol: Weapons Package Supply Protocol: Technical Arrangements and Offset contracts was signed in respect of 36 Rafale Jets on 23rd September, 2016. The aircrafts were scheduled to be delivered in phased manner commencing from October 2019.”

                                     More importantly, it is then brought out in para 4 that, “Things remained quiet until sometime in the month of September, 2018 when certain newspapers reported a statement claimed to have been made by the former President of France, Francois Hollande, to the effect that the French Government were left with no choice in the matter of selection of Indian Offset Partners and the Reliance Group was the name suggested by the Government of India. This seems to have triggered of the writ petitions under consideration.

                                  The first writ petition i.e. Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 225 of 2018 has been filed by one Shri Manohar Lal Sharma, a practicing lawyer of this Court. What is sought for in the said writ petition is registration of an FIR under relevant provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and a Court Monitored Investigation. The further relief of quashing the Inter-Governmental Agreement of 2016 for purchase of 36 Rafale Jets has also been prayed for.

                           Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1205 of 2018 has been filed by one Shri Vineet Dhanda claiming to be a public spirited Indian. The petitioner states that he was inspired to file the writ petition being agitated over the matter on the basis of the newspaper articles/reports.

                        The third writ petition bearing Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 297 of 2018 has been filed by one Shri Sanjay Singh, a Member of Parliament alleging illegality and non-transparency in the procurement process. The said writ petition seeks investigation into the reasons for “cancellation of earlier deal” and seeks a scrutiny of the Court into the alteration of pricing and, above all, how a ‘novice’ company i.e. Reliance Defence came to replace the HAL as the Offset partner. Cancellation of Inter-Governmental Agreement and registration of an FIR has also been prayed for.

                          The fourth and the last writ petition bearing Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 298 of 2018 has been filed by Shri Yashwant Sinha, Shri Arun Shourie and Shri Prashant Bhushan claiming to be public spirited Indians. They are aggrieved by non-registration of FIR by the CBI pursuant to a complaint made by them on 4th October, 2018 which complaint, according to the petitioners, disclose a prima facie evidence of commission of a cognizable offence under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The prayer, inter alia, made is for direction for registration of an FIR and investigation of the same and submitting periodic status reports to the Court.”  

                                   It is then underscored in para 5 that, “Adequate Military strength and capability to discourage and withstand external aggression and to protect the sovereignty and integrity of India, undoubtedly, is a matter of utmost concern for the Nation. The empowerment of defence forces with adequate technology and material support is, therefore, a matter of vital importance.”

                                 Simply put, para 6 then stipulates that, “Keeping in view the above, it would be appropriate, at the outset, to set out the parameters of judicial scrutiny of governmental decisions relating to defence procurement and to indicate whether such parameters are more constricted than what the jurisprudence of judicial scrutiny of award of tenders and contracts, that has emerged till date, would legitimately permit.”

                                                  Broadly speaking, para 7 then makes the picture more clear by pointing out that, “Parameters of judicial review of administrative decisions with regard to award of tenders and contracts has really developed from the increased participation of the State in commercial and economic activity. In Jagdish Mandal vs State of Orissa and Ors, (2007) 14 SCC 517, this Court, conscious of the limitations in commercial transactions, confined its scrutiny to the decision making process and on the parameters of unreasonableness and mala fides. In fact, the Court held that it was not to exercise the power of judicial review even if a procedural error is committed to the prejudice of the tenderer since private interests cannot be protected while exercising such judicial review. The award of contract, being essentially a commercial transaction, has to be determined on the basis of considerations that are relevant to such commercial decisions, and this implies that terms subject to which tenders are invited are not open to judicial scrutiny unless it is found that the same have been tailor-made to benefit any particular tenderer or a class of tenderers. [See Maa Binda Express Carrier & Anr. Vs. North-East Frontier Railway & Ors. (2014) 3 SCC 760]. Para 8 then states explicitly that, “Various Judicial pronouncements commencing from Tata Cellular vs. Union of India (1994) 6 SCC 651, all emphasise the aspect that scrutiny should be limited to the Wednesbury Principle of Reasonableness and absence of mala fides or favouritism.”

                           Truth be told, para 9 then seeks to clarify that, “We also cannot lose sight of the tender in issue. The tender is not for construction of roads, bridges, etc. It is a defence tender for procurement of aircrafts. The parameter of scrutiny would give far more leeway to the Government keeping in mind the nature of the procurement itself. This aspect was even emphasized in Siemens Public Communication Networks Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. (2008) 16 SCC 215. The triple ground on which such judicial scrutiny is permissible has been consistently held to be “illegality”, “irrationality” and “procedural impropriety”.”

                            As it turned out, para 11 then elucidates that, “It is our considered opinion/view that the extent of permissible judicial review in matters of contracts, procurement, etc. would vary with the subject matter of the contract and there cannot be any uniform standard or depth of judicial review which could be understood as an across the board principle to apply to all cases of award of work or procurement of goods/material. The scrutiny of the challenges before us, therefore, will have to be made keeping in mind the confines of national security, the subject of the procurement being crucial to the nation’s sovereignty.”

                                       Going forward, it is then observed in para 12 that, “Adopting such an approach, on 10th October, 2018 when the first two writ petitions were initially listed before the Court, the Court had specifically observed in its order that it is proceeding in the matter by requiring the Government of India to apprise the Court of the details of the steps taken in the decision making process notwithstanding the fact that the averments in the writ petitions were inadequate and deficient. The Court had also indicated that it was so proceeding in the matter in order to satisfy itself of the correctness of the decision-making process. It was also made clear that the issue of pricing or matters relating to technical suitability of the equipment would not be gone into by the Court. The requisite information was required to be placed before the Court by the Government of India in sealed cover. Before the next date of hearing fixed i.e. 31st October, 2018, the other two writ petitions came to be filed.”

                                Be it noted, it is then revealed in para 13 that, “On 31st October, 2018, the Court in its order had recorded that in none of the writ petitions the suitability of the fighter jets and its utility to the Indian Airforce had been called into question. Rather what was doubted by the petitioners is the bona fides of the decision-making process and the price/cost of the equipment at which it was proposed to be acquired.” Para 14 then states that, “Pursuant to the order dated 10th October 2018, a note in sealed cover delineating the steps in the decision-making process was submitted to the Court and by order dated 31st October 2018 this Court had directed that such of the information which has been laid before the Court, which can legitimately be brought into the public domain, be also made available to the petitioners or their counsels. Details with regard to the induction of the Indian Offset Partner (IOP), if any, was also required to be disclosed. The Court also directed that the details with regard to pricing; the advantages thereof, if any, should also be submitted to the Court in a sealed cover.”

                                     Needless to say, para 15 then states that, “It is in the backdrop of the above facts and the somewhat constricted power of judicial review that, we have held, would be available in the present matter that we now proceed to scrutinise the controversy raised in the writ petitions which raise three broad areas of concern, namely, (i) the decision-making process; (ii) difference in pricing; and (iii) the choice of IOP.”  

              Decision Making Process

                                       It cannot be lost on us that para 16 then spells out that, “The details of the steps in the decision-making process leading to the award of the 36 Rafale fighter aircrafts’ order have been set out in response to the order dated 10th October, 2018. The Government states that the DPP 2002 has been succeeded by periodical reviews in 2005, 2006, 2008, 2011, 2013 and 2016. The preamble to DPP has been referred to capture its essence, which emphasises that –

“Defence acquisition is not a standard open market commercial form of procurement and has certain unique features such as supplier constraints, technological complexity, foreign suppliers, high cost, foreign exchange implications and geo-political ramifications. As a result, decision making pertaining to defence procurement remains unique and complex.”

It also states that –

              “Defence procurement involves long gestation periods and delay in procurement will impact the preparedness of our forces. The needs of the armed forces being a non-negotiable and an uncompromising aspect, flexibility in the procurement process is required, which has also been provisioned for.”

It is DPP 2013 which is stated to have been followed in the procurement in question.

                              It is no doubt true that paragraph 77 of the DPP 2013 reads as follows:

                    “77. This procedure would be in supersession of Defence Procurement Procedure 2011 and will come into effect from 01 June 2013. There are, however, cases which would be under various stages of processing in accordance with provision of earlier versions of DPP at the time of commencement of DPP-2013. The processing of these cases done so far under the earlier procedure will be deemed to be valid. Only those cases in which RFP is issued after 01 June, 2013, will be processed as per DPP-2013.”           

In other words when it is stated that only those cases in which RFP is issued after 1st June 2013 will be processed as per DPP 2013, in this case where the RFP was issued much prior to 1st April 2013 and it was withdrawn, as already noted, in June 2015, a question may arise as to how it could be claimed that DPP 2013 was followed. We, however, also notice clause 75 of DPP 2013 which reads as follows:

                  “75. Any deviation from the prescribed procedure will be put up to DAC through DPB for approval.”

                                    To put it gently, it is then observed in para 17 that, “Also, we notice that the official respondents have sought support from paragraph 71 of the DPP 2013. Para 71 of DPP 2013, in respect of the IGA has been referred to, which postulates possibilities of procurement from friendly foreign countries, necessitated due to geo-strategic advantages that are likely to accrue to the country. Such procurement would not classically follow the Standard Procurement Procedure or the Standard Contract Document, but would be based on mutually agreed provisions by the Governments of both the countries based on an IGA, after clearance from the Competent Financial Authority (hereinafter referred to as “CFA”). Of the total procurement of about Rs 7.45 lakh crores since 2002 under DPP, different kinds of IGAs, including Foreign Military Sales and Standard Clauses of Contract account for nearly 40%. With the object of promoting indigenization, a robust offset clause is said to have been included since 2005. As per the Defence Offset Guidelines of 2013, the vendor/Original Equipment Manufacturer (hereinafter referred to as “OEM”) is free to select its IOPs for implementing the offset obligation.”

                                           It would be pertinent to mention here that while shedding light on the unresolved issues involved in procuring the 126 fighter aircrafts is concerned, para 18 states eloquently that, “As far as the endeavour to procure 126 fighter aircrafts is concerned, it has been stated that the contract negotiations could not be concluded, inter alia, on account of unresolved issues between the OEM and HAL. These have been set out as under:

“i) Man-Hours that would be required to produce the aircraft in India: HAL required 2.7 times higher Man-Hours compared to the French side for the manufacture of Rafale aircraft in India.

ii) Dassault Aviation as the seller was required to undertake necessary contractual obligation for 126 aircraft (18 direct fly-away and 108 aircraft manufactured in India) as per RFP requirements. Issues related to contractual obligation and responsibility for 108 aircraft manufactured in India could not be resolved.”   

                                     Truly speaking, para 19 then minces no words in clearly and convincingly pointing out that, “The aforesaid issues are stated to have been unresolved for more than three years. Such delay is said to have impacted the cost of acquisition, as the offer was with ‘in-built escalation’ and was influenced by Euro-Rupee exchange rate variations. The stalemate resulted in the process of RFP withdrawal being initiated in March 2015. In this interregnum period, adversaries of the country, qua defence issues, inducted modern aircrafts and upgraded their older versions. This included induction of even 5th Generation Stealth Fighter Aircrafts of almost 20 squadrons, effectively reducing the combat potential of our defence forces. In such a situation, government-to-government negotiations resulted in conclusion of the IGA for the supply of 36 Rafale Aircrafts, as part of a separate process. The requisite steps are stated to have been followed, as per DPP 2013. An INT (Indian Negotiating Team) was constituted to negotiate the terms and conditions, which commenced in May 2015 and continued till April 2016. In this period of time, a total of 74 meetings were held, including 48 internal INT meetings and 26 external INT meetings with the French side. It is the case of the official respondents that the INT completed its negotiations and arrived at better terms relating to price, delivery and maintenance, as compared to the MMRCA offer of Dassault. This was further processed for inter-ministerial consultations and the approval of the CCS was also obtained, finally, resulting in signing of the agreement. This was in conformity with the process, as per para 72 of DPP 2013.”

                                      Of course, para 20 then adds that, “The petitioners, on the other hand, seek to question the very fulfillment of the prerequisites for entering into an IGA. The Government of France, giving onlya ‘Letter of Comfort’ and not a ‘Sovereign Guarantee’ has been questioned.”

               Taking the argument of the petitioners forward, para 21 then brings out that, “It is a say of the petitioners that para 71 envisages three eventualities, where the question of entering into an IGA would arise, which have not arisen in the present case:

(a)          Proven technology and capabilities belonging to a friendly foreign country is identified by our Armed Forces while participating in joint international exercises;

(b)         Large value weapon system/platform in service in a friendly foreign country is available for transfer or sale normally at a much lesser cost; or

(c)           Requirement of procuring a specific state-of-the-art equipment/platform where the Government of the OEM’s country might have imposed restriction on its sale and thus the equipment cannot be evaluated on ‘No Cost No Commitment’ basis.”

                                          Now coming to one of the most important paras of this landmark judgment which vindicates Centre’s stand on Rafale deal, para 22 very clearly and categorically holds that, “We have studied the material carefully. We have also had the benefit of interacting with senior Air Force Officers who answered Court queries in respect of different aspects, including that of the acquisition process and pricing. We are satisfied that there is no occasion to really doubt the process, and even if minor deviations have occurred, that would not result in either setting aside the contract or requiring a detailed scrutiny by the Court. We have been informed that joint exercises have taken place, and that there is a financial advantage to our nation. It cannot be lost sight of that these are contracts of defence procurement which should be subject to a different degree and depth of judicial review. Broadly, the processes have been followed. The need for the aircrafts is not in doubt. The quality of the aircraft is not in question. It is also a fact that the long negotiations for procurement of 126 MMRCAs have not produced any result, and merely conjecturing that the initial RPF could have resulted in a contract is of no use. The hard fact is that not only was the contract not coming forth but the negotiations had come practically to an end, resulting in a recall of the RFP. We cannot sit in judgment over the wisdom of deciding to go in for purchase of 36 aircrafts in place of 126. We cannot possibly compel the Government to go in for purchase of 126 aircraft. This is despite the fact that even before the withdrawal of RFP, an announcement came to be made in April 2015 about the decision to go in only for 36 aircrafts. Our country can afford to be unprepared/underprepared in a situation where our adversaries are stated to have acquired not only 4th Generation, but even 5th Generation Aircrafts, of which, we have none. It will not be correct for the Court to sit as an appellate authority to scrutinize each aspect of the process of acquisition.”      

                               Going forward, para 23 then observes that, “We may also note that the process was concluded for 36 Rafale fighter jet aircrafts on 23rd September, 2016. Nothing was called into question, then. It is only taking advantage of the statement by the ex-President of France, Francois Hollande that these set of petitions have been filed not only qua the aspect which formed the statement, that is, the issue of IOPs but also with respect to the entire decision-making process and pricing. We do not consider it necessary to dwell further into this issue or to seek clause-by-clause compliances.”

              Pricing

                                         On the issue of pricing, first and foremost the Apex Court Bench held in para 24 that, “The challenge to the pricing of the aircrafts, by the petitioners, is sought to be made on the ground that there are huge escalations in costs, as per the material in public domain, as found in magazines and newspapers. We did initially express our disinclination to even go into the issue of pricing. However, by a subsequent order, to satisfy the conscience of the Court, it was directed that details regarding the costs of the aircrafts should also be placed in sealed covers before the Court.”

                                       To put things in perspective, it is then very rightly observed by the top court in para 25 that, “The material placed before us shows that the Government has not disclosed pricing details, other than the basic price of the aircraft, even to the Parliament, on the ground that sensitivity of pricing details could affect national security, apart from breaching the agreement between the two countries. The pricing details have, however, been shared with the Comptroller and Auditor General (hereinafter referred to as “CAG”), and the report of the CAG has been examined by the Public Accounts Committee (hereinafter referred to as “PAC”). Only a redacted portion of the report was placed before the Parliament, and is in public domain. The Chief of the Air Staff is stated to have communicated his reservation regarding the weaponry which could adversely affect national security. The pricing details are stated to be covered by Article 10 of the IGA between the Government of India and the Government of France, on purchase of Rafale Aircrafts, which provides that protection of classified information and material exchanged under the IGA would be governed by the provisions of the Security Agreement signed between both the Governments on 25th January, 2008. Despite this reluctance, the material has still been placed before the Court to satisfy its conscience.”   

                             To say the least, it is then clarified in para 26 that, “We have examined closely the price details and comparison of the prices of the basic aircraft along with escalation costs as under the original RFP as well as under the IGA. We have also gone through the explanatory note on the costing, itemwise.

   Suffice it to say that as per the price details, the official respondents claim there is a commercial advantage in the purchase of 36 Rafale aircrafts. The official respondents have claimed that there are certain better terms in IGA qua the maintenance and weapon package. It is certainly not the job of this Court to carry out a comparison of the pricing details in matters like the present. We say no more as the material has to be kept in a confidential domain.”

              Offsets

                       To put it succinctly, para 27 then envisages that, “The issue of IOP is what has triggered this litigation. The offset contract is stated to have been governed by the Defence Offset Guidelines of DPP 2013. Two of the said contracts were signed with Dassault and M/s MBDA Missile Systems Limited on 23rd September, 2016, the same day on which the IGA was signed between the Government of India and the Government of France. These are the French industrial suppliers of the Aircraft package and Weapon Package respectively. There are stated to be no offset obligations in the first three years, but the offset obligations are to commence from October 2019 onwards.”

                        While craving for the exclusive indulgence of esteemed readers, it must be informed here that para 28 then while shedding light on the complaint of the petitioners brings out that, “The complaint of the petitioners is that the offset guidelines contemplate that the vendor will disclose details about the Indian Offset partner however, in order to help the business group in India in question, an amendment was carried out in paragraph 8 of the Offset Guidelines that too with retrospective effect. By virtue of the said amendment it is contended that cloak of secrecy is cast about the Offset partner and the vendor is enabled to give the details at a much later point of time. It is contended, however, that other provisions of the Offset Guidelines remain unamended, and, therefore, Government cannot pretend ignorance about the Indian Offset partner as has been done in the affidavit filed. It is complained that favouring the Indian business group has resulted in offence being committed under the Prevention of Corruption Act.”    

                     For esteemed readers exclusive indulgence, it must also be informed here that para 29 then discloses that, “As per clause 8 of DPP 2013, dealing with the processing of offset proposals, it has been stated in clause 8.2 as under:

                  “8. Processing of Offset Proposals

                    8.2 The TOEC (Technical Offset Evaluation Committee) will scrutinize the technical offset proposals (excluding proposals for Technology Acquisition by DRDO as per para 8.3) to ensure conformity with the offset guidelines. For this purpose, the vendor may be advised to undertake changes to bring his offset proposals in conformity with the offset guidelines. The TOEC will be expected to submit its report within 4-8 weeks of its constitution”.”

                                   Having said this, let us now turn to para 30 which says that, “It has been categorically stated that the vendor/OEM is yet to submit a formal proposal, in the prescribed manner, indicating the details of IOPs and products for offset discharge. A press release in the form of a ‘Clarification on Offset Policy’, posted on 22nd September, 2018 has also been placed before us. Inter alia, it states that the Government reiterates that it has no role to play in the selection of the IOP. As per the Defence Offset Guidelines, the OEM is free to select any Indian company as its IOP. A joint venture is stated to have come into being between Reliance Defence and Dassault in February 2017, which is stated to be a ‘purely commercial arrangement’ between the two private companies. Media reports of February 2012 are stated to suggest that Dassault, within two weeks of being declared the lowest bidder for procurement of 126 aircrafts by the previous Government, had entered into a pact for partnership with Reliance Industries (Another business group) in the Defence sector. Dassault has also issued a press release stating that it has signed partnership agreement with several companies and is negotiating with over hundred other companies. As per the guidelines, the vendor is to provide details of the IOPs, either at the time of seeking offset credit or one year prior to discharge of offset obligation which would be due from 2020 onwards. The aforesaid press release is in conformity with the clause dealing with IOPs which reads as under:

                    “4. Indian Offset Partner

                     4.3 The OEM/vendor/Tier-1 sub-vendor will be free to select the Indian offset partner for implementing the offset obligation provided the IOP has not been barred from doing business by the Ministry of Defence.”

                                Now coming to para 31, it stipulates that, “Despite the aforesaid illustration, the petitioners kept on emphasising that the French Government has no say in the matter, as per media reports. It is also stated that there was no reason for Dassault to have engaged the services of Reliance Aerostructure Ltd., through a joint venture, when the company itself had come into being only on 24th April, 2015. The allegation, thus, is that the Indian Government gave a benefit to Reliance Aerostructure Ltd., by compelling Dassault to enter into a contract with them, and that too at the cost of the public enterprise, HAL.”

                                       Now let us talk about para 32. It says: “It is no doubt true that the company, Reliance Aerostructure Ltd., has come into being in the recent past, but the press release suggests that there was possibly an arrangement between the parent Reliance company and Dassault starting from the year 2012. As to what transpired between the two corporate would be a matter best left to them, being matters of their commercial interests, as perceived by them. There has been a categorical denial, from every side, of the interview given by the former French President seeking to suggest that it is the Indian Government which had given no option to the French Government in the matter. On the basis of materials available before us, this appears contrary to the clause in DPP 2013 dealing with IOPs which has been extracted above. Thus, the commercial arrangement, in our view, itself does not assign any role to the Indian Government, at this stage, with respect to the engagement of the IOP. Such matter is seemingly left to the commercial decision of Dassault. That is the reason why it has been stated that the role of the Indian Government would start only when the vendor/OEM submits a formal proposal, in the prescribed manner, indicating details of IOPs and products for offset discharge. As far as the role of HAL, insofar as the procurement of 36 aircrafts is concerned, there is no specific role envisaged. In fact, the suggestion of the Government seems to be that there were some contractual problems and Dassault was circumspect about HAL carrying out the contractual obligation, which is also stated to be responsible for the non-conclusion of the earlier contract.”

                                      It is a no-brainer that para 33 while vindicating Centre’s position on rafale deal very clearly and convincingly points out that, “Once again, it is neither appropriate nor within the experience of this Court to step into this arena of what is technically feasible or not. The point remains that DPP 2013 envisages that the vendor/OEM will choose its own IOPs. In this process, the role of the Government is not envisaged and, thus, mere press interviews or suggestions cannot form the basis for judicial review by this Court, especially when there is categorical denial of the statements made in the Press, by both the sides. We do not find any substantial material on record to show that this is a case of commercial favouritism to any party by the Indian Government, as the option to choose the IOP does not rest with the Indian Government.”

                    Conclusion:

                                 In conclusion, it is then observed in para 34 that, “In view of our findings on all the three aspects, and having heard the matter in detail, we find no reason for any intervention by this Court on the sensitive issue of purchase of 36 defence aircrafts by the Indian Government. Perception of individuals cannot be the basis of a fishing and roving enquiry by this Court, especially in such matters. We, thus, dismiss all the writ petitions, leaving it to the parties to bear their own costs. We, however, make it clear that our views as above are primarily from the standpoint of the exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution of India which has been invoked in the present group of cases.”

                                          It must be revealed here that Centre has sought correction in para 25 of this landmark and laudable judgment which had stated that the pricing details were shared with the Comptroller and Auditor General of India and that the report was examined by the Public Accounts Committee. The Centre said the error in the Apex Court’s judgment was “perhaps on account of misinterpretation of a couple of sentences in a note” that was handed over to it in a sealed cover. The government said in an application to the court that, “The observations in the judgment have resulted in a controversy in public domain, and would warrant correction by the court in the interest of justice.” The government said in its original note submitted to the court, the word “is” had been replaced by the word “has been”, which created the confusion. The report of the CAG will be placed before the PAC as and when it is ready, the government said in the application.

                                               All said and done, Opposition must refrain from making a political capital out of this small mistake which Centre has itself acknowledged and has sought correction also to it! There is no point in making a mountain out of a molehill! But it is the Opposition which must realize this and gracefully accept this landmark judgment!

                                      No doubt, this landmark, laudable and extraordinary judgment must be truly respected by each and every Indian and we all should desist from making India a laughing stock in front of the world by crying “scam, scam and scam without giving any proof to substantiate it.” We all need to appreciate that the  Supreme Court is the highest court of the land and its landmark and laudable judgment must be respected by Centre, Opposition and all of us in equal measure! Former UP CM Akhilesh Yadav very rightly and gracefully has accepted this landmark judgment of three-Judges Bench of the Apex Court and has refused to support the Congress demand for a JPC into it! Politics over defence deals is most deplorable and disgusting and it is our national security which suffers the most in this political one-upmanship game! How can any good Indian support it? All petty politics over it must stop and political interest must relinquish its prime position which must be replaced by national interest and it has to be above everything else if our nation is to progress and prosper in the real true sense! Is it a tall order? Certainly not!


Courtesy/By: Sanjeev Sirohi  |  20 Dec 2018     Views:1683

Articles Updates

The Legal Depth of Cryptocurrency....
14 May 2022     Views:1047
Have You Suffered Harm Due to a Cochlear Implant?...
13 May 2022     Views:811
When is a Deposition Summary used?...
13 May 2022     Views:876
Denied! 8 Most Common Reasons for Green Card Denia...
25 Feb 2022     Views:1248
International customary law – a study of the Ang...
20 Feb 2022     Views:3103
How to Have an Essay Written for Free?...
10 Feb 2022     Views:987
How to maximise a law firm’s success with a virt...
28 Dec 2021     Views:1363
Helpful Math Website for Students - AssignMaths.co...
26 Nov 2021     Views:1348
The Upcoming Municipal Nominee Program of Canada...
29 Oct 2021     Views:1506
Assault with a Weapon: How To Get Your Charges Dro...
28 Oct 2021     Views:1163
Law School Personal Statement Tips for Winning Adm...
12 Oct 2021     Views:1377
Can an Employee on Maternity Leave be Terminated?...
05 Oct 2021     Views:895
OLD STATUTES MAKING A COMEBACK AMID VIRUS OUTBREAK...
04 May 2020     Views:3338
ARTICLE 141: DOCTRINE OF PRECEDENT...
04 May 2020     Views:18813
Presumptions in Evidence Law...
04 May 2020     Views:6485
Unique use of Technology during covid-19 pandemic...
30 Apr 2020     Views:2943
45 days interim bail granted to under- trial priso...
29 Apr 2020     Views:2855
DOCTRINE OF RES GESTAE...
27 Apr 2020     Views:6985
Rights of the LGBTQI community- a long road ahead....
26 Apr 2020     Views:2625
Measures to protect women against domestic violenc...
26 Apr 2020     Views:2613
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)...
25 Apr 2020     Views:3086
United Nations Convention to Combat Desertificatio...
24 Apr 2020     Views:2233
Increase in Cyberbullying during COVID-19...
24 Apr 2020     Views:1005
DOCTRINE OF COLOURABLE LEGISLATIONS...
24 Apr 2020     Views:1527
Doctrine of lifting of corporate veil...
23 Apr 2020     Views:1116
Meaning of Legal Pluralism...
23 Apr 2020     Views:911
Once a mortgage, always a mortgage...
23 Apr 2020     Views:41307
Euthanasia- Meaning and Legality in India...
23 Apr 2020     Views:804
Judicial activism and Judicial restraint...
22 Apr 2020     Views:976
Concept of Insider Trading under Investment Law...
22 Apr 2020     Views:1158
Need for Legal Awareness...
22 Apr 2020     Views:1123
Is Extradition a Legal Duty of State? ...
22 Apr 2020     Views:3444
The Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Traff...
22 Apr 2020     Views:769
Why Dependence On Criminal Law Is Not The Solution...
22 Apr 2020     Views:716
Uniform Civil code...
22 Apr 2020     Views:759
VETO POWER AND DOUBLE VETO POWER ...
20 Apr 2020     Views:18441
ABETMENT UNDER THE INDIAN PENAL CODE...
20 Apr 2020     Views:5223
Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 197...
20 Apr 2020     Views:2173
NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL - CRITICAL ANALYSIS...
20 Apr 2020     Views:4128
LAWS AGAINST ACID ATTACK IN INDIA...
20 Apr 2020     Views:9366
Concept of conciliation...
19 Apr 2020     Views:2135
White collar crimes in India...
19 Apr 2020     Views:1768
No Law To Make Whatsapp Group Admins Liable For Me...
19 Apr 2020     Views:5866
Relationship between International Law and Municip...
18 Apr 2020     Views:50844
International Labour Organization (ILO)...
18 Apr 2020     Views:739
How is the Law arena affected by COVID-19?...
18 Apr 2020     Views:679
Motor Vehicle Insurance Law...
18 Apr 2020     Views:725
CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY (CSR) AND ITS IMPO...
18 Apr 2020     Views:869
ENVIRONMENTAL GAINS OF THE LOCKDOWN MUST BE PRESER...
18 Apr 2020     Views:825
Difference between Kidnapping and Abduction...
17 Apr 2020     Views:2356
JUSTIFYING SC ORDER THAT MANDATES FREE COVID-19 TE...
17 Apr 2020     Views:693
Evolution of the Nature and Scope of Article 12 of...
16 Apr 2020     Views:4851
Corruption laws in India ...
16 Apr 2020     Views:926
ADVERTISING LAWS IN INDIA...
16 Apr 2020     Views:1158
The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons...
15 Apr 2020     Views:891
Business Laws in India...
15 Apr 2020     Views:2124
The Process of Passing an Ordinary Bill in the Par...
14 Apr 2020     Views:10869
International Committee of the Red Cross...
14 Apr 2020     Views:870
National Company Law Tribunal...
14 Apr 2020     Views:946
FOOD ADULTERATION...
13 Apr 2020     Views:1915
The United Nations Rules for the Protection of Juv...
13 Apr 2020     Views:2903
Environmental Protection Act, 1986...
12 Apr 2020     Views:1507
IMPORTANCE OF PRECEDENTS ...
12 Apr 2020     Views:8379
MoHFW and ICMR hold a conflicting statement over C...
11 Apr 2020     Views:781
Introduction to Income Tax Act, 1961...
11 Apr 2020     Views:4502
DEMOCRACY IN INDIA...
10 Apr 2020     Views:1439
United Nations Law of the Sea Convention (UNCLOS)...
10 Apr 2020     Views:1355
An Overview of Juvenile Delinquency and the Juveni...
09 Apr 2020     Views:1652
How is Absolute Liability different from Strict Li...
09 Apr 2020     Views:23958
International Armed Conflict (IAC) and Non-Interna...
09 Apr 2020     Views:2251
The Concept of Bonded Labour under the Legal Syste...
09 Apr 2020     Views:829
Why Indian Constitution is called Quasi-federal?...
08 Apr 2020     Views:26985
What should be given primary importance, Human Rig...
08 Apr 2020     Views:888
Karl Marx: Debates on the Law on Thefts of Wood ...
08 Apr 2020     Views:4049
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Disc...
07 Apr 2020     Views:920
Legal Rights of Students in India...
07 Apr 2020     Views:2591
International Covenant on Civil and Political...
06 Apr 2020     Views:772
Plant Quarantine (Regulation of Import into India)...
06 Apr 2020     Views:1432
The Hart-Fuller debate in a Nutshell ...
06 Apr 2020     Views:15959
Convention on Prevention and Punishment of the Cri...
06 Apr 2020     Views:636
The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Child...
06 Apr 2020     Views:717
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO PRIVACY DURING THE HEALTH CRI...
06 Apr 2020     Views:704
Traditional Knowledge : The Convention on Biologic...
06 Apr 2020     Views:714
Bailment...
05 Apr 2020     Views:1261
Monopolistic nature of Copyright Societies in Indi...
05 Apr 2020     Views:1027
Marital Rape...
05 Apr 2020     Views:670
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Bill ...
05 Apr 2020     Views:645
Manual Scavenging ...
05 Apr 2020     Views:615
How serious can Online Abuse be?...
05 Apr 2020     Views:603
Cognizable and non cognizable offences...
05 Apr 2020     Views:4755
Legal Aid In India ...
05 Apr 2020     Views:708
Basic Structure Doctrine...
05 Apr 2020     Views:715
Medical Negligence...
05 Apr 2020     Views:595
Consumer Protection Act, 2019...
05 Apr 2020     Views:763
Legality of Cryptocurrency in India...
05 Apr 2020     Views:999
Intimate Partner Violence...
05 Apr 2020     Views:641
CENTRE USES THE PRETENCE OF ‘FAKE NEWS’ TO SUP...
05 Apr 2020     Views:594
International Humanitarian Law...
05 Apr 2020     Views:661
What rights do a disabled person in India have? ...
05 Apr 2020     Views:852
Universal Declaration of Human Rights...
03 Apr 2020     Views:831
What is the National Security Act being slapped on...
03 Apr 2020     Views:598
False News- another epidemic?...
02 Apr 2020     Views:674
Commercial laws in India a Bird's-eye view...
02 Apr 2020     Views:5669
All About Suo Moto Proceedings...
02 Apr 2020     Views:697
Intellectual Property Rights...
02 Apr 2020     Views:738
Alternate Dispute Resolution...
02 Apr 2020     Views:675
Types of E-commerce Models ...
02 Apr 2020     Views:613
'Intermeddler' as a Legal Representative under the...
01 Apr 2020     Views:5053
Right to health- A fundamental right...
31 Mar 2020     Views:711
What is a Green Bond? ...
31 Mar 2020     Views:630
Defamation...
31 Mar 2020     Views:680
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF NATIONAL LOCKDOWN...
30 Mar 2020     Views:780
Positive and Negative Impacts of the US-China Trad...
29 Mar 2020     Views:1613
Public Heath(Covid-19) Rules, 2020...
29 Mar 2020     Views:588
Opinion | Migration and the Mockery of Lockdown- I...
29 Mar 2020     Views:683
Female Genital Mutilation- Violation of Human Righ...
29 Mar 2020     Views:742
Supreme Court’s judgement on Shreya Singhal v. U...
29 Mar 2020     Views:1205
International Court of Justice...
28 Mar 2020     Views:716
Feminist Jurisprudence...
27 Mar 2020     Views:850
IP Protection and Diffusion of Environmentally Sou...
27 Mar 2020     Views:903
Covid-19 fostered Racism ...
26 Mar 2020     Views:659
Mercy Petition: The Process ...
26 Mar 2020     Views:1290
WTO Work Programme on E-Commerce ...
26 Mar 2020     Views:676
Comparison between Section 144 of CrPC, lockdown a...
26 Mar 2020     Views:1157
Prison reforms...
26 Mar 2020     Views:710
How far has the LGBTQI community come?...
26 Mar 2020     Views:642
Public Interest Litigation...
26 Mar 2020     Views:776
The Right to information Act- Still a right or not...
25 Mar 2020     Views:933
Legalization of Marijuana...
25 Mar 2020     Views:699
Significance of AB PM-JAY in the light of COVID-19...
25 Mar 2020     Views:648
The History of Magna Carta...
25 Mar 2020     Views:1255
Introduction to Child Rights in India...
25 Mar 2020     Views:3890
CENTRE CANNOT DECLARE AN ORGANISATION POLITICAL: ...
06 Mar 2020     Views:2959
A DECISION MADE BY SC ON AYODHYA VERDICT...
29 Jan 2020     Views:1023
RIGHTS OF TRANSGENDER IN INDIA...
29 Jan 2020     Views:1235
MARITAL RAPE - A NON CRIMINALIZED CRIME IN INDIA...
24 Jan 2020     Views:1196
MISCONCEPTION ABOUT CITIZENSHIP AMENDMENT ACT ...
22 Jan 2020     Views:1066
CORPORATE GOVERNANCE...
21 Jan 2020     Views:1238
Hyderabad Encounter- Human Rights Violation or Jus...
18 Jan 2020     Views:1689
NOTE ON NIRBHAY CASE CONVICTS...
17 Jan 2020     Views:1195
NOTE ON ARTICLE 370...
17 Jan 2020     Views:1120
Rape and Indian laws ...
13 Jan 2020     Views:1626
An overview on Drugs Law...
13 Jan 2020     Views:1228
Mob Lynching: Role of Politics and approach of Jud...
08 Jan 2020     Views:3829
Trademarks: Spectrum of Distinctiveness and Indian...
06 Jan 2020     Views:4463
Women Prisoners ...
23 Dec 2019     Views:1294
Child Care Institutions and its Judicial Interpret...
23 Dec 2019     Views:1304
Smart Contracts and Their Relevance in The Legal P...
19 Dec 2019     Views:1083
Government Vs Opposition on the Citizenship Amendm...
12 Dec 2019     Views:1345
Condition Of Lady Advocates Vulnerable: Lawyer App...
11 Dec 2019     Views:1831
Montesquieu’s Theory of Separation of Powers: Ho...
10 Dec 2019     Views:30437
JUDICIAL REVIEW AND JUDICIAL OVER-REACH: TRANSITIO...
10 Dec 2019     Views:2696
Due Process Of Law For Rapists Must Speed Up Now...
10 Dec 2019     Views:984
Human Rights Of Women Must Also Be Respected...
09 Dec 2019     Views:1049
Speedy Capital Punishment For Rapists Must Be Ensu...
08 Dec 2019     Views:961
Why Only One Dhananjoy Chatterjee Hanged Till Now?...
07 Dec 2019     Views:1304
Why No Death Penalty For Gang Rape In India?...
07 Dec 2019     Views:833
Rape Convicts Must Be Hanged At The Earliest From ...
05 Dec 2019     Views:780
No Mercy Petition And No Life Term Ever For Gang R...
02 Dec 2019     Views:1022
Section 207 CrPC: Magistrate Cannot Withhold Any D...
02 Dec 2019     Views:2030
UP Bar Council Chairman Harishankar Singh Openly C...
17 Nov 2019     Views:1384
AN UNDERSTANDING OF PRESIDENT’S RULE UNDER ART 3...
13 Nov 2019     Views:2611
COOKING UP A LEGALLY PROTECTED MEAL: A study on IP...
13 Nov 2019     Views:1134
Justice Sharad Arvind Bobde To Be The New CJI From...
31 Oct 2019     Views:1474
UK Supreme Court Declares Prorogation Of Parliamen...
29 Sep 2019     Views:856
Right To Access Internet Is Part Of Right To Priva...
23 Sep 2019     Views:934
No Attempt Made To Frame Uniform Civil Code Despit...
19 Sep 2019     Views:896
A Legal Giant Named Ram Jethmalani Finally Passes ...
09 Sep 2019     Views:686
Judicial Service – HC Can’t Modify/Relax Instr...
02 Sep 2019     Views:658
Government Notifies Strict Provisions Of Motor Veh...
31 Aug 2019     Views:729
NDPS: Reverse Burden Of Proof Does Not Absolve Pro...
30 Aug 2019     Views:1445
Institutional Independence, Financial Autonomy Int...
28 Aug 2019     Views:689
A Legal Luminary And A Political Stalwart Passes A...
25 Aug 2019     Views:722
Allahabad HC Bans DJs And Passes Directions For Re...
24 Aug 2019     Views:622
Delhi HC Refuses Anticipatory Bail To P Chidambara...
23 Aug 2019     Views:853
Chidambaram Getting No Respite From Courts...
23 Aug 2019     Views:602
Domestic Violence And Dowry Accused Set Free By Th...
22 Aug 2019     Views:3246
Bombsy HC: Treat every citizen with dignity...
20 Aug 2019     Views:3231
Integration Of J&K With India Is Now Full And Fina...
20 Aug 2019     Views:1150
Second Appeal Not To Be Dismissed Merely On The Gr...
18 Aug 2019     Views:817
Judge Can Recuse From A Case At His Own Volition, ...
17 Aug 2019     Views:896
Don't politicize demolition of temples: SC...
16 Aug 2019     Views:3240
Madras Christian College - female students sexuall...
16 Aug 2019     Views:3094
Charged for employing triple talaq...
16 Aug 2019     Views:1352
Earlier Convicted now Acquitted - Lack of Conclusi...
15 Aug 2019     Views:1278
MACAD Scheme to be enforced in Tamil Nadu - 1st Oc...
15 Aug 2019     Views:1254
Filing Of Criminal Complaint For Settling Civil Di...
15 Aug 2019     Views:935
End Discrimination: Equalize legal age of Marriage...
14 Aug 2019     Views:761
Madras HC issues directions upon Officers to check...
14 Aug 2019     Views:739
BOMBAY HC to Civic Bodies: "Own up to your respons...
14 Aug 2019     Views:718
Infringement of Registered TM "Vistara" - Threat t...
13 Aug 2019     Views:980
US Citizen approaches Bombay High Court After Bein...
13 Aug 2019     Views:885
Normalcy need not be restored in J&K instantly : S...
13 Aug 2019     Views:770
Prohibitory Steps taken against Students for Consu...
13 Aug 2019     Views:803
Basic Amenities to Traffic Personnel ...
12 Aug 2019     Views:642
Madras HC upholds the appointment notification of ...
12 Aug 2019     Views:791
Plea against E-pharmacies struck down by Bombay HC...
12 Aug 2019     Views:735
Parliament Rightly Makes Triple Talaq Criminal But...
12 Aug 2019     Views:680
No Tax Deduction from Motor Accident Compensation ...
11 Aug 2019     Views:733
Delhi HC: Plant 50 Trees, Quash Criminal Proceedin...
11 Aug 2019     Views:677
Iyal Isai Nataka Mandram should abide by the time ...
11 Aug 2019     Views:938
Transitory Committee to be formed for Indian Arche...
11 Aug 2019     Views:695
Outlawing Of Triple Talaq Is Highly Commendable...
11 Aug 2019     Views:730
Daring Resolve Taken By Centre On Jammu And Kashmi...
10 Aug 2019     Views:647
M Kavitha’s suspension to be reviewed...
09 Aug 2019     Views:959
SC: Adverse Possession owing to Title over Propert...
09 Aug 2019     Views:741
Regulation of Online streaming contents out of the...
09 Aug 2019     Views:784
Constitution Cannot Be Above Country Come What May...
09 Aug 2019     Views:697
Ocean waves to be our new energy source...
08 Aug 2019     Views:772
Delhi HC: Simple language to be incorporated in FI...
08 Aug 2019     Views:981
THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA ASKED THE GOVERNMENT T...
08 Aug 2019     Views:731
Victim Has A Right To Assist The Court In A Trial ...
08 Aug 2019     Views:2066
Study of Lakes to be Conducted by NEERI...
07 Aug 2019     Views:872
SC Denies Permission to Conduct DNA Tests...
07 Aug 2019     Views:803
Whatsapp's fight against interference with User-Pr...
07 Aug 2019     Views:701
Evidence Of A Solitary Witness In A Criminal Trial...
07 Aug 2019     Views:744
High Court of Karnataka set aside the retirement o...
07 Aug 2019     Views:881
Study of Lakes to be Conducted by NEERI...
06 Aug 2019     Views:801
History-sheeter kidnaps and rapes a College Studen...
06 Aug 2019     Views:812
No Room For Sympathy While Sentencing Terror Convi...
06 Aug 2019     Views:605
Rejected Plea: Declaration of Vande Mataram as Nat...
05 Aug 2019     Views:977
Madras HC corrects the computation error of Motor ...
05 Aug 2019     Views:714
Fundamental Right To Privacy Not Absolute And Must...
05 Aug 2019     Views:922
Diocese of Tanjore Society School gets relief from...
04 Aug 2019     Views:785
THE TEMPLES IN KARNATAKA NO MORE BE GOVERNED UNDER...
03 Aug 2019     Views:987
Triple Talaq legislation is challenged in the Delh...
03 Aug 2019     Views:715
Special Olympics International Football Championsh...
03 Aug 2019     Views:704
Concession to be given to disabled persons appeari...
03 Aug 2019     Views:1214
Bombay High Court Hears Dowry Case Involving A Civ...
03 Aug 2019     Views:846
Karnataka High Court on the condition of Roads...
02 Aug 2019     Views:1043
SC ORDERS DEATH PENALTY IN COIMBATORE GANG-RAPE CA...
02 Aug 2019     Views:748
RBI Changes Features Of New Currency Notes. Bombay...
02 Aug 2019     Views:716
Interest Of Victim And Society At Large Must Also ...
02 Aug 2019     Views:694
Abolition of Colonial Decorum in Courts...
01 Aug 2019     Views:4830
Punjab & Haryana HC Bans Use Of Loudspeakers Witho...
31 Jul 2019     Views:1187
ICJ Has Rightly Called Pakistan’s Bluff In Jadha...
26 Jul 2019     Views:679
Review And Reconsider Conviction And Sentencing Of...
22 Jul 2019     Views:687
Plaintiff Cannot Be Forced To Add Parties Against ...
21 Jul 2019     Views:811
Biggest Slap By ICJ Directly Right On The Face Of ...
19 Jul 2019     Views:599
Delhi HC Imposes Rs. 50,000 Cost On Woman For Fals...
17 Jul 2019     Views:747
Non-Appointment Of Judges Affects Speedy Justice: ...
16 Jul 2019     Views:698
Right To Get Anticipatory Bail Is Not Any Fundamen...
14 Jul 2019     Views:1054
Plea For Anticipatory Bail Not Maintainable Before...
13 Jul 2019     Views:1272
Divorce Cannot Be Granted Only On Ground Of Irretr...
11 Jul 2019     Views:683
Right To Shelter A Fundamental Right; State Has Co...
08 Jul 2019     Views:730
HC Cannot Reverse Acquittal Without Affording Oppo...
06 Jul 2019     Views:611
Centre Is Legally Empowered To Create A High Court...
05 Jul 2019     Views:1053
Centre Must Now Immediately Order Creation Of HC B...
03 Jul 2019     Views:593
UAPA: SC Dismisses PFI Leader’s Plea Seeking Dis...
02 Jul 2019     Views:831
How To Record The Evidence Of Deaf And Dumb Rape V...
01 Jul 2019     Views:1292
Ban Advocates From Carrying Weapons Inside Court P...
26 Jun 2019     Views:1529
Enact Strict Law To Ensure Personal Safety Of Doct...
26 Jun 2019     Views:1411
Mere Aggressive Behaviour Of Wife Not A Ground Of ...
26 Jun 2019     Views:1631
Court Cannot Destroy Faith & Beliefs Of People: Ma...
07 Jun 2019     Views:667
Insult Of Soldier In Name Of Law Is Most Disgracef...
07 Jun 2019     Views:757
Courts Cannot Decide Eligibility And Essential Qua...
20 May 2019     Views:2128
SC Upholds Constitutionality Of Section 23 Of PCPN...
20 May 2019     Views:1650
My Unflinching Faith In CJI Stands Fully Vindicate...
20 May 2019     Views:995
Solitary Confinement Of Death Convict Prior To Rej...
20 May 2019     Views:1366
Section 498A & 306 IPC: Incidents Which Happened M...
20 May 2019     Views:4263
Why Should UP Have Least High Court Benches In Ind...
20 May 2019     Views:726
Successive Bail Applications Should Be Placed Befo...
20 May 2019     Views:6445
“Drop This Episode From Your Minds And Gossips...
20 May 2019     Views:735
Is The Criticism Of In-House Procedure Justified?...
20 May 2019     Views:880
Mere Pendency Of Civil Case Between Complainant An...
20 May 2019     Views:746
Section 482 CrPC: HC Should Assign Reasons As To W...
20 May 2019     Views:1956
Delhi High Court Directs Government To Set Up 18 F...
20 May 2019     Views:716
No New Appointments To Be Made From In-Service Can...
18 May 2019     Views:721
Only Advocates Can Plead And Argue On Behalf Of Li...
09 Apr 2019     Views:2271
Nations Must Make Gun Laws More Stricter...
04 Apr 2019     Views:2820
SC Designates 37 Lawyers As Senior Advocates...
04 Apr 2019     Views:3807
Adding Additional Accused: To Invoke Section 319 C...
04 Apr 2019     Views:4432
SC Sets Aside Life Ban Imposed On Cricketer Sreesa...
04 Apr 2019     Views:934
P&H HC Directs Protection Of Honest Officers While...
04 Apr 2019     Views:796
Death Sentence Can Be Imposed Only When Life Impri...
19 Mar 2019     Views:1382
Islamabad High Court Rejects Plea Against Release ...
19 Mar 2019     Views:1403
Lawyers Resort To Seek Unnecessary Adjournments Am...
19 Mar 2019     Views:1460
Even Poem Can Help Save A Death Convict From Gallo...
19 Mar 2019     Views:1368
Educated Woman Supposed To Be Fully Aware Of Conse...
19 Mar 2019     Views:778
Jammu and Kashmir HC Upholds PM’s Employment Pac...
19 Mar 2019     Views:1069
Magistrate Shall Specify Whether Sentences Awarded...
23 Feb 2019     Views:1690
Mere Inability To Repay Loan Does Not Constitute C...
23 Feb 2019     Views:1981
Inability To Establish Motive In A Case Of Circums...
23 Feb 2019     Views:1797
Punjab & Haryana HC Issues Slew Of Directions To C...
23 Feb 2019     Views:2071
Court Has to Confine Itself To The Four Corners Of...
23 Feb 2019     Views:887
Long Pendency Amounts To A Special Reason For Impo...
23 Feb 2019     Views:840
Successive Applications For Recalling Witnesses Sh...
23 Feb 2019     Views:1869
Lieutenant General (Rtd) Cannot Be Tried In A Gene...
06 Feb 2019     Views:1571
Autonomy Of the Bar Cannot Be Taken Over By The Co...
05 Feb 2019     Views:2267
Casual Act Of Possession Over Property Does Not Co...
04 Feb 2019     Views:1473
No Authority Can Claim Privilege Not To Comply Wit...
04 Feb 2019     Views:1647
Death Sentence Only When The Alternative Option Is...
04 Feb 2019     Views:1863
SC Imposes Rs 5 Crore Penalty On A Medical College...
28 Jan 2019     Views:1140
A Judicial Officer Is Not An Ordinary Government S...
25 Jan 2019     Views:1320
Rape And Murder Of 8 Year Old Girl: SC Commutes De...
23 Jan 2019     Views:1415
Mere Allegations Of Harassment Without Proximate P...
23 Jan 2019     Views:1834
Legal Article Why Should They Speak Lies: Decease...
23 Jan 2019     Views:967
Can a Economic offender can escape by surrendering...
22 Jan 2019     Views:775
NCW is a Lame Duck or Legal Guardian for women...
22 Jan 2019     Views:734
Mutual Consent Divorce Procedure in Chennai Family...
21 Jan 2019     Views:3623
Quick Divorce in India...
21 Jan 2019     Views:797
4 Important things to file Divorce in Chennai...
21 Jan 2019     Views:898
How to get Divorce for Muslim Men ...
21 Jan 2019     Views:9759
Offences Under Section 307 IPC Can’t Be Quashed ...
17 Jan 2019     Views:2277
Suspicion, Howsoever Grave, Can’t Substitute Pro...
17 Jan 2019     Views:818
Delhi HC Rejects AJL's Plea Against Centre's Order...
03 Jan 2019     Views:1598
1984 Anti-Sikh Riots: Delhi HC Awards Life Term To...
03 Jan 2019     Views:1429
SC Dismisses Petitions Seeking Probe Into Rafale D...
20 Dec 2018     Views:1683
Executive Magistrate Cannot Direct Police To Regis...
20 Dec 2018     Views:2123
Why Lawyers Of West UP Are Compelled To Strike Fre...
20 Dec 2018     Views:1010
recheck...
19 Dec 2018     Views:1251
1984 Anti-Sikh Riots – Delhi HC Upholds Convicti...
12 Dec 2018     Views:1214
Why Lawless West UP Has No High Court Bench?...
11 Dec 2018     Views:1256
Bombay HC Quashes Government Resolution Making It ...
26 Nov 2018     Views:1518
SLP Against Death Sentence Shall Not Be Dismissed ...
26 Nov 2018     Views:1553
SC Allows Live-Streaming Of Public Proceedings In ...
26 Nov 2018     Views:1394
Sexual Offenders Registry For Law Enforcement Agen...
26 Nov 2018     Views:1325
Delhi HC Sentences 16 Policemen To Life Imprisonme...
26 Nov 2018     Views:825
Men Too Have Right Not To Be Defamed And Denounced...
26 Nov 2018     Views:741
Courts Have To Adequately Consider Defence Of The ...
26 Nov 2018     Views:805
CJI Ranjan Gogoi Demonstrates His Firm Resolve And...
26 Nov 2018     Views:741
SC Issues Directions On Examination Of Witnesses I...
26 Nov 2018     Views:1399
Aadhaar Held Mandatory For Government Subsidies An...
26 Nov 2018     Views:1019
Legal Article Now Bar Council ID Card Is Valid Id...
01 Nov 2018     Views:1723
SC Sets Deadline On Sale Of BS-IV Vehicles; Says H...
01 Nov 2018     Views:1663
Devotion Cannot Be Subjected To Gender Discriminat...
23 Oct 2018     Views:2842
There Cannot Be Any Mechanical Denial Of Appointme...
23 Oct 2018     Views:1990
Rights Of Accused Far Outweigh That Of Victims, Ne...
23 Oct 2018     Views:986
SC Strikes Down 158 Year Old Adultery Law Under Se...
23 Oct 2018     Views:1615
Extra-Judicial Confession Of Accused Need Not In A...
23 Oct 2018     Views:1173
Leaders Of Outfits Calling For Mob Violence Liable...
23 Oct 2018     Views:983
Section 377 IPC Decriminalised Partially By Supre...
23 Oct 2018     Views:1274
New CJI Ranjan Gogoi Is Determined To Ensure Sweep...
23 Oct 2018     Views:1407
Court Must Not Go Deep Into The Matter While Consi...
26 Sep 2018     Views:1558
Reputation Of An Individual Is An Insegregable Fac...
26 Sep 2018     Views:1983
Sec. 498A IPC: Only HC Can Quash Cases On Settleme...
18 Sep 2018     Views:3151
Punjab & Haryana HC Orders Rape Convict, Mother To...
17 Sep 2018     Views:1744
Bombay HC Imposes Cost Of Rs 50K On Petitioner Fir...
17 Sep 2018     Views:1020
Uttarakhand HC Dismisses “Contempt Petition” A...
14 Sep 2018     Views:1126
SC Stresses On Need To Develop And Recognize ‘De...
08 Sep 2018     Views:1069
Mirchpur Dalit Killings: “Atrocities Against SCs...
08 Sep 2018     Views:1175
SC Upholds Pan India Reservation Rule in Delhi; Bu...
03 Sep 2018     Views:1451
NDPS Bail Conditions Discriminatory, Irrational An...
31 Aug 2018     Views:2223
People Without A Degree Performing Surgeries: Utta...
28 Aug 2018     Views:1033
Uttarakhand HC Issues Directions For Conserving ...
28 Aug 2018     Views:1625
12 Year Old Girl’s Rape And Murder: Constitute P...
28 Aug 2018     Views:1230
MP HC To Debar Members/Office Bearers Of Bar Counc...
22 Aug 2018     Views:985
Special Squad, Police Patrolling Every 24 Hours To...
20 Aug 2018     Views:1064
NRC Being Prepared Under Supreme Court’s Watch I...
20 Aug 2018     Views:1069
Victims Of Crime Can Seek Cancellation Of Bail: MP...
20 Aug 2018     Views:1222
Delhi HC Strikes Down Provisions In Law That Crimi...
13 Aug 2018     Views:1258
Delhi HC Quashes Govt Notification Revising Minimu...
09 Aug 2018     Views:1097
Poorest Of Poor Cannot Go To Private Hospitals: Ut...
07 Aug 2018     Views:1551
How Long Will Lawyers Of West UP Just Keep Strikin...
04 Aug 2018     Views:1416
Courts Must See That The Public Doesn’t Lose Con...
04 Aug 2018     Views:1127
UK Tier 1 Entrepreneur Visa: Overview from Experts...
31 Jul 2018     Views:1009
Enact Law For Safety Of Soldiers Of Jammu And Kash...
23 Jul 2018     Views:1089
SC Advocates Creating A Special Law Against Lynchi...
23 Jul 2018     Views:2220
Matrimonial Discord Can’t Be Considered As Reaso...
23 Jul 2018     Views:1995
Uttarakhand HC Recommends Govt To Enact Legislatio...
23 Jul 2018     Views:2341
High Court Priests Cannot Refuse To Perform Religi...
23 Jul 2018     Views:1560
Uttarakhand High Court Passes String Of Directions...
23 Jul 2018     Views:925
SC Finally Decides Master Of Roster Case...
23 Jul 2018     Views:865
Stone Pelters And Terrorists Have No Right To Life...
23 Jul 2018     Views:1070
Remove Designations Like Police, HC, Journalist, A...
23 Jul 2018     Views:965
Why Centre is Providing Security For Separatists B...
23 Jul 2018     Views:1097
Farmer Suicide Due To Bankruptcy Or Indebtedness: ...
05 Jul 2018     Views:3245
Every Indian Should Salute Brave Soldier Aurangzeb...
05 Jul 2018     Views:2128
Uttarakhand HC Issues Directions To Curb Drug Pedd...
05 Jul 2018     Views:1729
Have A Functional National Law University Within 3...
05 Jul 2018     Views:1425
Establish Regional Bench Of AFT In The State Withi...
05 Jul 2018     Views:834
Cancel Licences of Drivers Using Cell Phones; Helm...
05 Jul 2018     Views:769
Uttarakhand High Court Puts Restrictions On Noise ...
05 Jul 2018     Views:839
Supreme Court To Look Into Validity Of Amended Law...
05 Jul 2018     Views:867
Mysterious Deaths, Rapes, Malnutrition, Unsanitary...
29 Jun 2018     Views:1253
No Politics Please Over Plan To Assassinate PM Mod...
11 Jun 2018     Views:1293
Free Mentally Ill Children And Formulate Policies ...
11 Jun 2018     Views:1696
Landmark Ruling By Uttarakhand HC On Solitary Conf...
07 Jun 2018     Views:2030
Right Of Adult Couple To Live Together Without Mar...
06 Jun 2018     Views:1427
Why BJP Will Be Wiped Out In West UP And UP?...
06 Jun 2018     Views:1578
Why UP Has Just One High Court Bench And West UP N...
05 Jun 2018     Views:1022
Women Governed By Muslim Personal Law Can Invoke P...
04 Jun 2018     Views:869
Why Is BJP Not Creating More Benches In UP?...
01 Jun 2018     Views:866
Probation Period To Count For New Civil Servants B...
01 Jun 2018     Views:2332
SC Women Lawyers Association Seeks Chemical Castra...
01 Jun 2018     Views:841
SC Finally Steps In To Expedite POCSO Cases...
01 Jun 2018     Views:1633
UP Former CMs Can’t Stay In Govt Bungalows: SC...
01 Jun 2018     Views:795
Make BCCI A Public Body: Law Panel...
01 Jun 2018     Views:876
Self-Styled Godman Asaram Awarded Life Until Death...
01 Jun 2018     Views:900
Why Cases Withdrawn Against Stone Pelters In Kashm...
01 Jun 2018     Views:986
A High Court Bench For West UP In Meerut Is Impera...
01 Jun 2018     Views:1067
People Of Karnataka Should Worship Congress...
01 Jun 2018     Views:1121
Delhi HC Upholds Life Term To Seven Policemen...
19 Mar 2018     Views:867
Finance Act-2018 And Customs Act-1962 (Amendments)...
28 Feb 2018     Views:911
Why No Death Or Life Term For Corruption?...
19 Feb 2018     Views:774
Will Electoral Bonds Usher In Transparency?...
19 Feb 2018     Views:774
How Long Will Lawyers Of West UP Keep Striking?...
19 Feb 2018     Views:843
Finance Act 2018 and Customs Act 1962...
18 Feb 2018     Views:1084
Why Has Stone Pelting Been Legalised In Kashmir?...
12 Feb 2018     Views:845
Shopian Firing: Major's Dad Moving SC For Quashing...
12 Feb 2018     Views:814
Soldiers Have Every Legal Right To Kill Stone Pelt...
12 Feb 2018     Views:1804
Attack On Lawyers: Delhi HC Issues Notice To Delhi...
10 Feb 2018     Views:856
Female Foeticide Must Be Punished Most Strictly...
10 Feb 2018     Views:811
Soldiers Have Every Legal Right To Act In Self Def...
10 Feb 2018     Views:769
New Consumer Protection Bill 2018 Will Entail More...
10 Feb 2018     Views:781
CJI Brings Out A Roster To Allot Cases...
10 Feb 2018     Views:1327
Five Year Jail Term For Lalu In Third Fodder Scam ...
10 Feb 2018     Views:867
SC Quashes All The 88 Mining Leases In Goa...
10 Feb 2018     Views:862
Prevention Of Money Laundering Act -2002 (PMLA-20...
07 Feb 2018     Views:760
Prevention Of Money Laundering Act-2002 Amended ...
04 Feb 2018     Views:1149
Prevention Of Money Laundering Act -2002 --U/S 45(...
03 Feb 2018     Views:1054
Prevention Of Money Laundering Act-2002 (P...
16 Jan 2018     Views:853
humanity...
13 Jan 2018     Views:779
Prevention Of Money Laundering Act-2002 PMLA...
13 Jan 2018     Views:808
Right to Know...
05 Jan 2018     Views:1101
A STUDY OF CERTAIN DEDUCTIONS ON INCOME TAX RELATI...
29 Dec 2017     Views:1355
Enviornment protection is for saving universe...
28 Dec 2017     Views:812
RIGHT TO PRIVACY AND STATUS OF SECTION 377, IPC, 1...
26 Dec 2017     Views:922
PROBLEMS WITHIN THE EXISTING POLICE SYSTEM...
26 Dec 2017     Views:838
LEGALITY : LEGALITY OF MARITAL RAPE...
26 Dec 2017     Views:1509
RIGHT TO PRIVACY AND DIRECTION FOR MANDATORY AADHA...
26 Dec 2017     Views:985
THE PARADOX OF PLEA BARGAINING...
26 Dec 2017     Views:1482
JOURNEY OF EVMs AMIDST CONTROVERSIES ...
26 Dec 2017     Views:890
UIDAI suspends Airtel, Airtel Payments and Banks e...
26 Dec 2017     Views:1165
2G Scam : The 2G Scam and much more...
26 Dec 2017     Views:1336
Kerala teen surveillance case: Invasion of Privacy...
26 Dec 2017     Views:986
Motherhood or Employment- the judicial perspective...
26 Dec 2017     Views:849

Most Read Articles

  • Relationship between International Law and Municipal Law
    On 18 Apr 2020    Views:50844
  • Once a mortgage, always a mortgage
    On 23 Apr 2020    Views:41307
  • Montesquieu’s Theory of Separation of Powers: How it has been adopted in India
    On 10 Dec 2019    Views:30437
  • Why Indian Constitution is called Quasi-federal?
    On 08 Apr 2020    Views:26985
  • How is Absolute Liability different from Strict Liability?
    On 09 Apr 2020    Views:23958
View all >>

Propertified Propertified Propertified Propertified Propertified Propertified Propertified Propertified Propertified

86540

Lawyers Network

103860

Users

630

Cities Serving

114

Law Schools Network

59824

Law Students Network

About us

  • Company Profile

Indian Major Laws

  • Indian Constitution
  • IPC
  • CrPC
  • CPC
  • Companies Act
  • Indian Evidence Act
  • CGST Act
  • Limitation Act

Policies

  • Terms of Use
  • Privacy Policy
  • Refund & Cancellation

    Ads & Media

  • Resource Sharing
  • Advertiser(Sign Up/Login)
  • Media

    Careers

  • Internships
  • Jobs
  • Student Journalists

    HELP & SUPPORT

  • Contact Us
  • Grievances
  • Test

News

  • Legal News
  • Post Article
  • Post Interview

Legal Library

  • Central Acts
  • Deeds Drafts [1127 ]
  • Legal Maxims

Connect

Lawsisto Direct

 

  •  
  •  
DISCLAIMER
Copyright © Lawsisto Private Limited. All rights reserved.
Unless otherwise indicated, all materials on these pages are copyrighted by Lawsisto Private Limited. All rights reserved. No part of these pages, either text or image may
be used for any purpose. By continuing past this page, you agree to our Terms of Service, Cookie Policy, Privacy Policy and Content Policies.