Supreme Court to govt: Give details on Rafale deal process

New Delhi: Brushing aside attorney-general K.K. Venugopal’s strong objection, the Supreme Court on Wednesday asked the Centre to apprise it of the steps taken in the decision-making process on the controversial acquisition of 36 Rafale fighter jets from France in a “sealed cover”. Under this agreement, India is to purchase 36 Rafale jets from France for an estimated Rs 58,000 crores.

A three-member bench of Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and K.M. Joseph, however, clarified that the details sought will not cover the pricing or suitability of the equipment for the Indian Air Force, given the sensitive nature of the matter.

Taking note of the objections by the attorney-general, the Bench said no notice was being issued to the Centre for now. It said the averments in the PILs by advocates M.L. Sharma and Vineet Dhanda, which appear to be grossly inadequate, haven’t been taken into account, and that the purpose behind the order was only to satisfy the court on the decision-making process.

At the outset, the attorney-general urged the bench to not entertain the writ petitions seeking a SIT probe into the deal. He said: “This is a matter of national security. Forty questions were asked in Parliament, which have only been selectively reproduced before Your Lordships. If a notice is issued, it would be to the Prime Minister... This is not a PIL in the traditional sense where the interests of weaker sections are to be safeguarded.”

The A-G added: “These pleas are political in nature, for political gain in the light of the fight between the ruling party and the Opposition. It is not a judicially reviewable issue. Courts don’t interfere with international treaties, for a domestic court to interfere with one would not be appropriate.”

The CJI told the A-G: “Suppose we ask for details of the decision-making process in a sealed cover, how would you react? It shall only be for perusal by judges, without touching on the technological parameters or suitability in terms of national events?”

The A-G said: “It’s a matter of national security. I myself will not be given details... as for the purchase protocol, it is called Defence Procurement Procedure, which has been followed for years.” Brushing aside the objections, the court sought the details by October 29 and posted the matter for further hearing on October 31.

The PIL by lawyer Vineet Dhanda sought a direction to the Centre to reveal details of the deal and comparative prices during UPA and NDA rule in a sealed cover to the court. He said there had been a lot of criticism by the Opposition parties, which had gone to the extent of calling the Prime Minister a “thief”. Unless the Centre was directed to submit the details of the agreement in a sealed cover, it would not be possible to answer the allegations, he added.

The petition also sought information about the contract given to Reliance by Dassault. The petition terms the allegations against the deal as “frivolous”, and states that “critics in the Opposition parties have adopted a very ignominious and profligate way even to criticise the Prime Minister”. Mr Dhanda argued this sort of criticism would  send a wrong signal about India to the world and thus it was necessary to clear the air regarding the deal.

Advocate M.L. Sharma’s plea, filed earlier, had alleged discrepancies in the fighter deal with France. He claimed the inter-governmental agreement to buy 36 Rafale jets must be quashed as it was an “outcome of corruption” and not ratified by Parliament under Article 253 of the Constitution.