Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
The Supreme Court of India had accepted to hear a review petition filed against the verdict on Rafale Deal. The Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi, Justice SK Kaul and Justice KM Joseph asked the Attorney General about whether the government can take shelter under national security when there is an allegation of corruption.
The AG persuaded the court that the illegally obtained evidence would be inadmissible. He also cited a Supreme Court case delivered by Justice Pasayat in support of his contention. However, the apex court relied on several cases to hold that illegally obtained evidence was relevant. The AG said that the review petition was based on the newspaper reports, which represented the distorted facts by violating the official secrets Act. In other words, he emphasized that the newspaper organisation published a piece of article on Rafale dispute based on the documents stolen or obtained without authorization from the defence ministry.
Since the documents so procured were privileged, the AG said the court that petitions citing such documents should be dismissed. The CJI said that the impact of the illegally obtained evidence was not insignificant, although there might have been a violation of the official secrets act. Further, the AG contended that it was a matter of national security. The revelation of such documents would be detrimental to the protected status of our nation against our enemies, and the purchase was essential for survival against our enemies.
The AG emphasized that the opposition attempts to topple the government, and the case had got a political angle. He also said that the CAG had submitted its report to the parliament. Prashant Bhushan, appearing for the other side, countered the arguments of the AG. Bhushan said that the source of evidence or information was not material, given the verdicts in the 2G and Coal Scam cases. He relied upon those judgements to indicate that the arguments raised by the AG in the instant case were akin to his prior arguments which the court dismissed.
The Counsel for the petitioner informed that the court that there was no special exemption under any law, where there were corruption allegations. He said the documents were published by the Hindu and the Caravan. Further, he said that the intention was not to quash the Rafale deal as such, rather it was necessary to probe the allegations of corruption in the deal. He claimed that the previous verdict was based on misleading facts. The court also heard another petitioner Arun Shourie before it adjourned the case for hearing on March 14.
The former cabinet ministers Yashwant Sinha and Arun Shourie along with their lawyer claimed that the judgement delivered on December 14 contained “patent factual and legal errors”. The Central Government had also filed an application for correction due to some grammatical errors. Along with the correction application, the court would hear the perjury proceedings initiated against the officials who allegedly misled the court based on false documents.
It is pertinent to note that the Supreme Court said in its previous verdict that there was nothing convincing to indicate the existence of corruption or doubt the decision-making process of the centre in procuring the 36 Rafale jets from France. The following are the grounds based on which the petitioners filed a review petition:
The Government had submitted the CAG report to the parliament, and the PAC examines the said report. The court did not look into the issue concerning the purchase price since the report was already examined by the PAC and CAG. Nevertheless, controversy emerged due to the unavailability of the CAG report at the time of judgement.
86540
103860
630
114
59824