Rafale deal highlights: Centre says documents related to deal ‘stolen’ from MoD, SC adjourns hearing till Mar 14

Before the court adjourned the hearing into the Rafale deal, Advocate Prashant Bhushan said all documents he submitted before the court were sourced from various publications. He cited how he got documents from whistleblowers in the 2G case and cases against former CBI Director Ranjit Sinha and how SC relies upon them.

The Supreme Court adjourned the hearing into the Rafale case till March 14.

The Attorney General observed that anything falling from the court in the matter will be used to "destablise" the nation. He submitted that the CAG report had also been placed in Parliament.

Coming down heavily on the Centre, Justice K M Joseph asked "if there is a question of corruption, can anyone take shelter under the argument of national security." Justice Joseph's rejoinder came after the Centre contended that "we need Rafale jet to defend our country from F-16 fighter planes that recently bombed us. Without Rafale how can we resist them."

Further, CJI Ranjan Gogoi and Justice S K Kaul quizzed the Attorney General and wondered whether it can be contended that the stolen material cannot be relied at all.

Citing the ongoing tensions between India and Pakistan, Attorney General K K Venugopal underscored the importance of having Rafale jets in the air force. "We need Rafale jet to defend our country from F-16 fighter planes that recently bombed us. Without Rafale how can we resist them," the AG told SC. "Rafale fighter jets are needed although MIG 21 of 1960s performed beautifully against F16," he added. PTI

Justice K M Joseph says that the question of national security will not arise when the issue before Court is whether an investigation should be ordered. Justice Joseph added that even stolen evidence can be looked into by the Court. It is well settled under the Evidence Act. If an act of corruption is committed, the government cannot take shelter under the Official Secrets Act.

The Attorney General, however, disagrees with Justice Joseph and says that source is important. He asks, "How did the petitioners get privileged documents of defence ministry?" Venugopal said that the review petition should be dismissed on the ground of violation of the Official Secrets Act.

Attorney General K K Venugopal said that the documents relied upon by Prashant Bhushan were stolen from the Defence Ministry and an investigation into the matter was underway. The AG also submitted that the documents were marked secret and classified, and therefore, are in violation of the Official Secrets Act. He sought dismissal of the review petitions and perjury application as they relied on stolen documents and said that today news report on Rafale amounts to influencing hearing in the apex court and is itself a contempt of court.

The Supreme Court said it will not hear review petition filed by AAP leader Sanjay Singh as he has made derogatory statements about apex court.

Supreme Court says it was contemplating action against AAP MP Sanjay Singh over some statements by him in context of the Rafale case & CBI case. Says it will hear him on these statements @IndianExpress

— Ananthakrishnan G (@axidentaljourno) March 6, 2019

The Supreme Court resumes hearing on petitions seeking review of Rafale verdict 

The Congress Wednesday launched a fresh attack on Prime Minister Narendra Modi over the Rafale aircraft deal, alleging that he misused his office to "benefit" Dassault Aviation and that a case under the prevention of corruption law is made out against him.

The party's chief spokesperson Randeep Singh Surjewala told reporters that the Indian Negotiating Team (INT) to finalise the purchase of the fighter aircraft was sidelined and National Security Advisor Ajit Doval finalised the negotiation at the behest of the prime minister's office.

Those who put documents on Rafale deal in public domain guilty under Official Secrets Act and contempt of court: Attorney General said in the Supreme Court. The AG said today's The Hindu report on Rafale also amounts to influencing hearing in the court and is itself in contempt of court. 

Appearing for the Centre, the AG has sought dismissal of Rafale review petition and perjury application as they relied on documents stolen from the Defence Ministry.

The CJI has asked the AG to tell after lunch what action has been taken on theft of documents on Rafale deal. The court will resume the hearing after lunch at 2 PM. 

The Supreme Court will resume hearing pleas seeking a review of its December 14 verdict on Rafale at 2 PM Wednesday. 

Critical facts on Rafale suppressed when petition for lodging FIR and investigation filed, petitioner Prashant Bhushan said in his arguments.  The Supreme Court would not have dismissed plea for FIR and probe into Rafale deal had there not been suppression of facts, Bhushan told the top court. 

Attorney General KK Venugopal, appearing for the Centre, told the Supreme Court that certain documents were stolen from the Defence Ministry either by public servants and an investigation is pending. "We are dealing with defence purchases which involve security of the state. It is a very sensitive case," he said. 

#Rafale review hearing: Centre objects to Adv Prashanth Bhushan relying on note by few members of negotiating team & published by The Hindu. Says document was stolen & Govt is probing it. SC asks AG K K Venugopal to appraise it by afternoon about status of probe @IndianExpress

— Ananthakrishnan G (@axidentaljourno) March 6, 2019

Petitioner and lawyer Prashant Bhushan had relied on the notes by few members of negotiating team and published by The Hindu.

A three-judge bench comprising  Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi and Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and K M Joseph have commenced hearing petitions seeking review of the Supreme Court's December 14 verdict dismissing petitions seeking a court-monitored probe in the Rafale fighter jet deal with France. 

The court said it won't look into any supplementary affidavits or other documents not filed before it.

The CAG report has examined the €7.87-bn deal for 36 Rafale aircraft signed between India and France on September 23, 2016 to assess “if the objectives of Indo-French joint statement and the objectives set out for INT by DAC were achieved”.

The CAG report tabled in Parliament compares UPA deal for 126 Rafale aircraft with NDA deal for 36 jets. How was this worked out? What else does the CAG report cover or not cover? READ HERE

Addressing a public meeting in Gujarat’s Jamnagar Monday, Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Monday reiterated that if the Indian Air Force had the Rafale fighter jets, the results of recent aerial engagement with Pakistan could have been different.

After Modi’s suggestion that the IAF could have done even better if they had the Rafael fighter jets, the opposition parties had charged that the PM was understating bravery and valour of the IAF by suggesting that lacked proper equipment.

Modi’s remarks come a day after Congress president Rahul Gandhi had claimed that the country would lose Rs 30,000 crore if the NDA government was to push through the new deal signed in 2015.

The Opposition parties have alleged that the NDA government bought 36 Rafale fighter aircraft, built by Dassault Aviation of France, under a direct government-to-government agreement at a much higher price than the one that was being negotiated for 126 aircraft by the previous UPA government under an open tender.

The controversy sharpened after Defence Minister Nirmala Sitharaman declined to share the cost of the Rafale fighters.  READ MORE

Congress president Rahul Gandhi has alleged there was a “scam” in the deal which was “personally got done” by Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

Vindicating the government stand and taking the sting out of the Opposition Congress attack over alleged irregularities in the purchase of 36 Rafale fighter aircraft from France, the Supreme Court in December last year, dismissed all four petitions seeking a court-monitored investigation, saying it found “no occasion to really doubt the process” of decision making, pricing and selection of offset partners.

The judges said “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 (Indian Offset Partner) does not rest with the Indian government”. READ MORE