Prasad 'habitual offender', lying to save Modi on Rafale deal: Congress
New Delhi, Aug 13 : The Congress on Monday attacked Union Law Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad, saying he is "a habitual offender in weaving lies" and is "brazenly misleading people sewing together a web of lies" to save Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Rafale deal.
The party demanded that Modi government immediately set up a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) to probe the Rafale scam and must answer to the questions raised by Congress President Rahul Gandhi.
The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) on Monday hit out at Gandhi, saying he is spreading a "blatant lie" against Prime Minister Modi and his government over alleged corruption in the Rafale deal to escape the Income Tax Department inquiry against him related to the National Herald case.
Congress spokesperson Randeep Singh Surjewala said: "Modi government's Law Minister is a habitual offender in weaving lies based on figments of his imagination.
"Today again he brazenly misled the people by sewing together a web of lies to save his master, Narendra Modi," he said.
Surjewala asked: "Who benefitted from the unilateral Rafale deal which snatched the Rs 30,000 crore ... contract from HAL, thereby benefiting a private entity...?"
"Why did BJP President Amit Shah deliberately hide his son's contingent liabilities and credit facilities worth Rs 97.35 crore and how did ‘Shah-Zaada' multiply his earnings by 16,000 times?" he said.
Surjewla said the Congress President on Monday asked the same questions that he has been asking from the Prime Minister as to what is the reason of secrecy behind the Rafale scam deal.
"Why did PM Modi bypass the Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS)? Why was Rs 41,000 crore loss caused to public exchequer by 300 per cent rise in the purchase price of Rafale planes from Rs 526 crore per aircraft to Rs 1,670 crore per aircraft?" said Surjewala.
"Why was India denied the transfer of technology to manufacture Rafale aircraft? Why was defence procurement procedure violated with impunity? The country feels sorry for the Law Minister, because instead of talking on the issue at hand, he was busy deflecting public attention by joining imaginary issues," he added.
Since Ravi Shankar Prasad was speaking about the secrecy clause and repeating the alibi which Modi gave during the "No-Confidence motion" debate, he should refer to the agreement between India and France concerning the protection of classified information and material in the field of defence and tell which paragraph states that the commercial cost of defence deals cannot be revealed, he said.
"During the No Confidence Motion debate, Modi was conveniently hiding behind the statement of French Government for not disclosing the price.
"PM's stand is inconsistent with the statement made by French President Emmanuel Macron on March 8, 2018 in an interview to a prominent news channel, stating that 'if the Modi government wanted to disclose some of the details to the opposition and Parliament, he won't interfere in such a discussion'.
"Where does the French President say that the commercial cost of the Rafale deal cannot be disclosed?" Surjewala said.
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.
Unnao rape case: SC defers hearing on CBI's plea against suspension of Sengar's life term
New Delhi (PTI): The Supreme Court on Monday deferred to the first week of May the hearing on a petition filed by the CBI challenging the suspension of life imprisonment of former BJP MLA Kuldeep Singh Sengar in the 2017 Unnao rape case.
A bench comprising Chief Justice Sura Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi said that the matter will be taken up after a nine-judge bench completes hearing on the Sabarimala review proceedings.
Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for Sengar, raised the issue of non-hearing of the pleas in another case related to the alleged custodial death of the victim's father in the Delhi High Court and said that a 10-year jail term was handed down to Sengar in that case.
"Ten years is likely to be completed soon and yet no substantial hearing has taken place in the high court. I should get bail in this matter," he said.
It was alleged by him that even the victim's lawyer is taking adjournments in the high court.
Lawyer Mehmood Pracha, counsel for the victim, said that only one adjournment has been sought in the high court.
The CJI noted the consent of both sides that no adjournment will be sought in the Delhi High Court in another case involving Sengar as one of the accused.
"The lawyers will extend full cooperation (in the HC)," the CJI said.
On December 29, last year, the top court stayed the Delhi High Court order suspending the life sentence of expelled BJP leader Sengar in the 2017 Unnao rape case and said he shall not be released from custody.
The bench, hearing the CBI's plea challenging the high court order, said that substantial questions of law have arisen in the matter that require consideration.
The apex court had also issued notice to Sengar seeking his response on the CBI's plea.
The bench said it was conscious of the fact that ordinarily, when a convict or an undertrial was released on bail pursuant to an order passed by a trial court or the high court, such an order should not be stayed by it without hearing such a person.
It noted that Sengar was also convicted and sentenced in a separate case and was still in custody in that matter.
"In the peculiar circumstances of the case, we stay the operation of the impugned order dated December 23, 2025, passed by the high court. Consequently, the respondent (Sengar) shall not be released from custody pursuant to the said order," the bench had said.
The top court said various substantial questions of law have arisen for its consideration in the matter.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the CBI, urged the bench to stay the high court order, saying it was a "horrific rape" of a minor child.
The Delhi High Court had, in its December 23, 2025, order, said that Sengar has been convicted under Section 5 (C) (aggravated penetrative sexual assault by a public servant) of the POCSO Act but an elected representative does not fit the definition of a "public servant" under Section 21 of the IPC.
The high court had suspended the jail term of Sengar, who was serving life imprisonment in the Unnao rape case, till the pendency of his appeal, saying he had already served seven years and five months in prison.
The high court order has sparked criticism from a section and there have been protests by the victim, her family and activists.
Sengar had challenged a December 2019 trial court verdict in the case. He had, however, remained in jail since he was also serving 10 years' imprisonment in the custodial death case of the victim's father and has not been granted bail in that case.
The rape case and other connected cases were transferred to Delhi from a trial court in Uttar Pradesh on the directions of the Supreme Court on August 1, 2019.
Sengar's appeal against his conviction in the case of the custodial death of the survivor's father is also pending, where he has sought suspension of sentence on the ground that he has already spent a substantial time in jail.
In its plea filed in the apex court, the CBI referred to its verdict in the L K Advani case in which it held that anyone who holds public office, like MPs or MLAs, would be deemed a "public servant".
It contended that the high court erred by declaring that Sengar, an MLA when the offence was committed, was not a "public servant" to be prosecuted under POCSO and granted him bail.
