Rafale scandal: Who is Modi loyal to?
Modi and his men seem to think that it is a huge success and a ‘clean chit’ given to them that an investigation of an alleged scam has been evaded at the outset. Supreme Court has dismissed the petition to probe into Rafale scam under the supervision of court.
Which means, the court has said it would not interfere with the matter and has hence specified its limitations in its jurisdiction. The court’s statement does not come after any investigation carried out by the Supreme Court. And the Team Modi is using it to pull wool over people’s eyes as it always does.
They are using this statement by the Court to defend themselves. They have been telling people that the court has absolved them of all corruption charges and that the court called it a clean deal, or something to that effect.
Many leaders including those from within the BJP and opposition parties have said Rafale Scam is many times bigger than the Bofors scandal. Through this scam, the government tried to axe the chances of HAL which has been bolstering and providing for the nation’s defence needs, and attempted to promote a non-entity in this sector such as Reliance.
This deal was clearly to offer advantage to Ambani family and his business, even at the cost of compromising on national security. These are the charges Modi is facing right now. His statement of palming off the blame of introducing Ambani into the deal was by Dassault Aviation has fallen flat with former President of France Hollande who said India specified the defence partner and they just went with the choice.
Even after all this, Narendra Modi government did not allow an investigation to take place. Bofors is nothing when compared to this Rafale deal which amounts to Rs one lakh crore.
Opposition parties are levelling serious charges that Modi has thrown all caution, policies and legal frameworks to wind to accommodate the interest of his corporate friends and beneficiaries. The Modi government has been issuing conflicting statements about this issue and misguiding the Parliament.
At some point, this government had said the deal was finalized by the UPA government when it was in power. The last UPA government had planned to buy 126 jets to bolster the Airforce from French company Dassault. Congress government which had faced a lot of embarrassment in case of Bofors, had taken enough care to ensure such mistakes do not repeat themselves over here.
Hence it had formed committees of experts to ratify the deals and specific issues. The committees had to submit their recommendations before the deal was finalized. Hence, the scrutiny was close at every stage.
This is how UPA planned to take the Rafale decision before buying 126 fighter jets. But everything turned topsy turvy with Modi government. The agreement that was reached during UPA was to buy jets at a cost of Rs 670 cr per unit, after long discussions that were held in 2012.
According to that, 18 jets would be bought from France and the rest of 108 jets would be assembled at Hindustan Aeronautics Limited. And in the meantime when the governments changed, the CEO of Dassault Company came down to India to hold discussions in 2015. He declared the talks were finalized and the agreement was closed to start the work.
But in order to offer profits to a corporate capitalist, PM Modi ignored the defence ministry and finalized the deal with his own specific terms and conditions. HAL was kept out and Reliance, a novice in defence sector, was the new shining partner in this deal.
Modi is credited with meddling with CBI since the office began to show interest in investigating the Rafale deal. The tiff between Alok Verma and Asthana was just a pretext this government needed. Asthana was the central government’s mole in CBI who informed the centre that Verma was interested in probing this deal. Latter was sent on compulsory leave. The centre has been successful in ensuring even the SC sings its tunes. But the SC statement is filled with contradictions.
The verdict says “The price fixing details of jets have been discussed with CAG and the PAC has scrutinized it. Only part of this scrutiny has been published in Parliament and public websites”. But the PAC has already said CAG report has not reached it yet.
Hence, the question arises about whether the SC was misguided and misinformed on the whole thing? Whatever that be, if Modi is honest in his intentions, why should be fear an investigation? Can he not come out unblemished and innocent from all this? It is his duty to regain the trust and faith of the nation. If the SC cannot probe this, this should be handed over to JPC. Since this is the question of country’s safety and security, Modi has to prove whether he is loyal to Reliance or to the country.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
CJI calls for 'unified judicial policy', use of technology to converge practices across courts
Jaisalmer (PTI): Pushing for a "unified judicial policy", Chief Justice of India Surya Kant on Saturday said technology can help align standards and practices across courts, creating a "seamless experience" for citizens, regardless of their location.
He said high courts -- due to the federal structure -- have had their own practices and technological capacities, and "regional barriers" can be broken down with technology to create a more unified judicial ecosystem.
Delivering the keynote address at the West Zone Regional Conference in Jaisalmer, Kant proposed the idea of a "national judicial ecosystem" and called for an overhaul of India's judicial system with the integration of technology.
"Today, as technology reduces geographical barriers and enables convergence, it invites us to think of justice not as regional systems operating in parallel, but as one national ecosystem with shared standards, seamless interfaces, and coordinated goals," he said.
He emphasised how the role of technology in the judiciary has evolved over time.
"Technology is no longer merely an administrative convenience. It has evolved into a constitutional instrument that strengthens equality before the law, expands access to justice, and enhances institutional efficiency," he said, highlighting how digital tools can bridge gaps in the judicial system.
Kant pointed out that technology enables the judiciary to overcome the limitations of physical distance and bureaucratic hurdles.
"It allows the judiciary to transcend physical barriers and bureaucratic rigidities to deliver outcomes that are timely, transparent and principled," he said, adding that the effective use of technology can modernise the delivery of justice and make it more accessible to citizens across the country.
The CJI called for implementing a "unified judicial policy".
He said India's judicial system has long been shaped by its federal structure, and different high courts have their own practices and technological capacities.
"India's vast diversity has led to different high courts evolving their own practices, administrative priorities and technological capacities. This variation, though natural in a federal democracy, has resulted in uneven experiences for litigants across the country," he said.
Kant underscored that predictability is crucial for building trust in the judicial system.
"A core expectation citizens place upon the courts is predictability," he said, adding that citizens should not only expect fair treatment but also consistency in how cases are handled across the country.
He pointed to the potential of technology in improving predictability.
"Technology enables us to track systemic delays and make problems visible rather than concealed," he said.
By identifying areas where delays occur, such as in bail matters or cases involving certain types of disputes, courts can take targeted action to address these issues and improve efficiency, Kant said.
The CJI explained that data-driven tools could identify the reasons behind delays or bottlenecks, allowing for faster, more focused solutions.
"Technology enables prioritisation by flagging sensitive case categories, monitoring pendency in real time and ensuring transparent listing protocols," he said.
Justice Surya Kant also discussed the importance of prioritising urgent cases where delays could result in significant harm. He highlighted his recent administrative order that ensures urgent cases, such as bail petitions or habeas corpus cases, are listed within two days of curing defects.
"Where delay causes deep harm, the system must respond with urgency," he stated, explaining that technology can help courts identify and expedite such cases.
Kant also raised the issue of the clarity of judicial decisions.
He noted that many litigants, despite winning cases, often struggle to understand the terms of their judgment due to complex legal language.
"Although the orders had gone in their favour, they remained unsure of what relief they had actually secured because the language was too technical, vague or evasive to understand," he said.
He advocated for more uniformity in how judgments are written.
"A unified judicial approach must therefore extend to how we communicate outcomes," he said.
The CJI also discussed the role of AI and digital tools in improving case management. He pointed to the potential of AI-based research assistants and digital case management systems to streamline judicial processes.
"Emerging technological tools are now capable of performing once-unthinkable functions. They can highlight missing precedent references, cluster similar legal questions, and simplify factual narration," he said, explaining how these technologies can help judges make more consistent decisions.
He also highlighted tools like the National Judicial Data Grid and e-courts, which are already helping to standardise processes like case filings and tracking.
Kant reiterated that the integration of technology into the judicial process is not just about improving efficiency but about upholding the integrity of the system and strengthening public trust.
"The measure of innovation is not the complexity of the software we deploy, but the simplicity with which a citizen understands the outcome of their case and believes that justice has been served," he said.
