Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
The Supreme Court held that “perceptions of individual cannot be the basis of fishing and roving enquiry by the Court.” The Court held that there was no reason for any intervention by this Court on the sensitive issue of purchase of 36 defense aircrafts by the Indian government.
Today a 3 judge bench CJ Ranjan Gogoi and S.K. Kaul and K.M. Joseph, JJ. dismissed the petition saying that the Court had no substantial reasons to fish into the trade deal. The Court iterated that in case of Tata Cellular v. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 651, the emphasis was the aspect that scrutiny should be curtailed to the Wednesbury Principle of reasonableness and the absence o any mala fides or instances of favoritism. Apprehending to the matter at hand, the Court said that it came across three important and broad topics while examining the defence tender. They were,
Examining these broad heads and after discussing with various senior Air Force Officials, the Court said that it was informed that the nation was at a monetary advantage after deal. The Bench also held that “We cannot sit in judgment over the wisdom of deciding to go in for purchase of 36 aircrafts in place of 126 and cannot possibly compel the Government to go in for purchase of 126 aircraft.”
“Our country cannot 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 would not be correct for the Court to sit as an appellate authority to scrutinize each aspect of the process of acquisition.” The apex Court also stated that it was not technically feasible for the Court of the country to go in and probe into the matter as it was neither appropriate nor within the experience of the Court. Also there was a substantial deficit of proof showing that there had been an, if any, instance of commercial favoritism.
The learned Justices also reminded that pertaining to Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the petitioner was well aware that no enquiry can be carried out unless there was a previous approval. Moreover, no authorized public servant can probe into the matters registered under Section 17A when the alleged act has been done by another public servant where the offence alleged can be traced to any recommendation made by the public servant in diligent discharge of his duties, inter alia of the authority competent to remove the servant from his Office of power at the time when the offense had been alleged to have been committed.
86540
103860
630
114
59824