Tell us how you decided on Rafale: Supreme Court to Centre
Details sought would not cover pricing of jets.
New Delhi: Brushing aside the strong objection from the Attorney General K.K. Venugopal, the Supreme Court on Wednesday asked the Centre to apprise the court of the steps taken in the decision making process in the controversial procurement of the 36 Rafale fighter jets from France in a ‘sealed cover’. As per this agreement the Union of India is to purchase 36 Combat Jets from France for an estimated cost of Rs 58, 000 crore.
A three judge bench of Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and K.M. Joseph, however, clarified that the details sought would not cover the pricing or the suitability of the equipment for the Indian Air force, bearing in mind the sensitive nature of the matter. SC seeks details of decision-making process in Rafale deal.
Taking note of objections from the Attorney General, the Bench observed that no notice is being issued to the Centre at the present stage. It said that the averments in the PILs filed by advocates M.L. Sharma and Vineet Dhanda, which appear to be grossly inadequate, have not been taken into account, and that the purpose behind the order is only to satisfy the court about 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 agreement. He said “this is a matter of national security. 40 questions were asked in the Parliament which have only been selectively reproduced before Your Lordships....If notice is issued, it would be to the Prime Minister and so on....This is not a PIL in the traditional sense where the interests of weaker sections are to be safeguarded.”
The AG further said, “These pleas are political in nature, filed for political gains in the light of the fight between the opposition and the ruling party. This is not a judicially reviewable issue. Courts do not interfere with international treaties, for a domestic court to interfere with one would not be appropriate.”
The CJI told the AG “Suppose we ask for the details of the decision-making process in sealed cover, how would you react? It shall only be for perusal by the judges, without touching on the technological parameters or the suitability in terms of the national events?
The AG reacted saying “it is a matter of national security. I myself will not be given the details....as for the purchase protocol, it is called the 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.