No question of FIR registration or CBI probe into Rafale deal: Centre to Supreme Court
New Delhi: The Centre has told the Supreme Court that there was no question of either registration of an FIR or investigation by CBI in the Rafale fighter jets deal as the apex court had already concluded that there was no reason for intervention by it on the "sensitive issue".
The Centre, which sought dismissal of petitions seeking review of the December 14 last year verdict which gave a clean chit to the government on procurement of 36 fighter jets from French firm Dassault, said CAG report "belied" the main arguments of petitioners regarding alleged "exorbitant price" of the jets.
In its 39-page written submissions filed in the top court, the Centre has said that petitioners and former union ministers Yashwant Sinha, Arun Shourie and activist advocate Prashant Bhushan have not made out any ground which would justify review of the "well reasoned" December 14 judgement last year.
"Especially, once this court had come to the conclusion that on all the three aspects i.e., the decision making process, pricing and Indian offset partner, there is no reason for intervention by this court on the sensitive issue of purchase of 36 Rafale fighter aircrafts by the Indian Government, there is no question of either registration of FIR much less any investigation by the CBI," the government said.
A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi had on May 10 reserved its verdict on the pleas seeking review of the December 14 judgement in the Rafale case.
The apex court, in its December 14 verdict, had said there was no occasion to doubt the decision-making process in the procurement of 36 Rafale jets and dismissed the petitions seeking an investigation into alleged irregularities in the Rs 58,000 crore deal.
Besides Sinha, Shourie and Bhushan, review petitions have also been filed by AAP lawmaker Sanjay Singh and lawyer Vineet Dhandha.
In its written submissions, the Centre has said in the garb of seeking review of the verdict and placing reliance on "some press reports and some incomplete internal file noting(s), copies of which were obtained unauthorisedly and illegally", the petitioners cannot seek to re-open the whole matter since scope of review petition is extremely limited.
"The review petition, it is therefore, submitted is an attempt to get a fishing and roving enquiry ordered, which this court has specifically declined to go into based on perceptions of individuals," it said.
The Centre also said the petitioners have not disclosed any new evidence in the review petition "except that they have now based their case on some unauthorisedly accessed documents copied from the secret files of the Ministry of Defence."
It said files and documents were made available to the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) who took about two years to complete its study and finalise its report.
"The report of the CAG does not support the main argument of petitioners which has been perpetually repeated before this court that the cost of each aircraft under 36 Rafale contract is Rs 1,000 crore higher than what it would have been under the MMRCA bid," the Centre said.
"The basic price of the aircraft has been informed to the Parliament as approximately Rs 670 crore at prevailing exchange rate of November, 2016; without associated equipments, weapons, India Specific Enhancements, maintenance support and services," it said.
It also said for the overall aircraft package, "the CAG has held that the contract was concluded at a price which is 2.86 per cent lower than the audit aligned price."
The government reiterated that it has no role in the selection of Indian offset partner which is a commercial decision of Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM).
It said monitoring of progress in the government to government process by Prime Minister Office (PMO) cannot be construed as interference or parallel negotiations.
Regarding the petitioners' claim that government had suppressed and concealed material facts from the apex court, the Centre said these allegations are devoid of merit.
"It is submitted that the IGA for 36 Rafale procurement is between the two sovereign nations and the implementation of the project which is on schedule is being closely monitored by both the Governments. The adequate safeguards are built into IGA for ensuring smooth implementation of the project," it said.
"The training of Indian Air Force personnel is underway in France. Any attempt to bring this procurement under cloud may result into delay in implementation of the project and would affect the operational preparedness of Indian Air Force," the Centre said.
Sinha, Shourie and Bhushan had earlier alleged in the apex court that the Centre "wilfully and deliberately" misled the court in the Rafale fighter jet case and this amounted to "wholesale fraud".
On the scope of judicial review, they had said apex court has consistently held that where the allegation is of corruption, procedural violations and mala fide decision making, the court will be well within its right to exercise the jurisdiction.
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.
Sujit Nair raises concerns over speculation of DMK-AIADMK understanding to block TVK
Chennai: Journalist and political commentator Sujit Nair has expressed concern over speculation that the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam and the All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam could explore a post-poll understanding to prevent Vijay-led Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam from forming the government in Tamil Nadu.
In a social media post, Sujit Nair said the election verdict in Tamil Nadu reflected a clear public demand for political change and argued that the mandate should be respected irrespective of political preferences.
Referring to reports and political discussions surrounding a possible understanding between the DMK and AIADMK, he said he hoped such developments remained only speculative conversations and did not turn into reality.
Nair stated that if such an alliance were to take shape, it would raise serious questions about ideological politics in the country. He said TVK had emerged through a democratic electoral process and that the legitimacy to govern in a parliamentary democracy comes from the people’s verdict.
According to him, attempts to prevent an electoral winner from forming the government through unexpected political arrangements may be constitutionally valid, but many people could view them as politically opportunistic.
He further said that such a move could particularly affect the political image of the DMK, which has historically projected itself around ideology, social justice and opposition politics. Nair said that in ideological terms, the DMK appeared closer to TVK than to the AIADMK, and joining hands with its long-time political rival only to remain in power could weaken its broader political narrative.
He added that the same questions would apply to the AIADMK as well, as the party had spent decades positioning itself against the DMK and such an arrangement could create discomfort among its cadre and supporters.
Drawing a comparison with Maharashtra politics in 2019, Nair said he had expressed similar views when the Shiv Sena formed an alliance with the Indian National Congress and the Nationalist Congress Party after the Assembly elections.
He said post-poll alliances between long-standing political rivals often create a public perception that ideology and electoral mandates become secondary when political power equations come into play.
Nair also said such developments increase public cynicism towards politics and reinforce the belief among voters that ideology is often sidelined after elections.
He maintained that the Tamil Nadu verdict was emphatic and said respecting both the spirit and substance of the mandate was important for the credibility of democratic politics.
