Yashwant Sinha, Arun Shourie, Prashant Bhushan seek perjury action against officials in Rafale case
New Delhi, Feb 18: Former Union Ministers Yashwant Sinha and Arun Shourie as also activist lawyer Prashant Bhushan moved the Supreme Court Monday seeking initiation of perjury proceedings against central government officials for allegedly giving "false or misleading" information in a sealed cover in the high-profile Rafale case.
The apex court on December 14 last year dismissed a clutch of PILs, including the one filed by Sinha, Shourie and Bhushan, saying that there was "no occasion to doubt" the decision-making process of the Centre in the procurement of 36 Rafale jets from France.
The trio, which has filed the plea seeking review of the verdict, filed a fresh application under section 340 of the CrPC (Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) seeking perjury prosecution against the officials responsible for providing "false" and "misleading" information to the apex court in a sealed cover.
The apex court had sought information from the Centre about the pricing details and the decision making process undertaken by the government before sealing the Rs 56,000 crore fighter jets deal.
The prosecution of the officials has been sought under section 193 and 195 of the IPC which deal with the offences of giving false evidence, contempt of lawful authority of public servants and giving false documents in evidence.
"The information that has come into the public domain after the judgement of court was delivered prima facie shows that government 'misled' the court on various counts and the basis of the judgement of the court is more than one untruth submitted by the government and suppression of pertinent information.
"The untruths and suppression of information in the notes' constitute perjury and also contempt as the notes' were submitted pursuant to the orders of the court," the plea said.
The plea, which has been filed in the disposed of PIL, said that the note on pricing was not shared with the petitioners.
"From the notes on the 'decision making process' and 'offsets', and Judgement of the court based on notes' submitted by the government, more than one untruth and suppressions are apparent," it said.
The plea also gave the details of "misleading facts", as per their opinion, to the court.
The suppression of information by the government deprived the court of complete facts and it led to dismissal of the PILs, the plea said, adding that the errant officials who misled the court be identified and suitably dealt with.
Referring to the CAG's audit of the deal, the plea said: "There was no CAG report at the time. The Government misled the court into relying on non-existent fact/report as basis of its observation on pricing in the judgement.
"Instead of admitting that it misled the court, by way of an application for 'correction', government imputes that Justices ...have misinterpreted tenses in English grammar in like manner individually and severally...".
The government's act of stating "untruth" to the court in a sealed cover on 'pricing' and its subsequent "scandalous" plea for modification have lowered the "sanctity of judicial proceedings", it said.
The plea also referred to recent media reports and alleged suppression of "unauthorised parallel negotiations" by the by the PMO and bypassing of the Ministry of Defence and the Indian Negotiating Team (INT).
Advocate M L Sharma was the first petitioner in the case. Later, another lawyer, Vineet Dhanda, moved the apex court with the plea for court-monitored probe into the deal. AAP leader Sanjay Singh also filed a petition.
After the three petitions were filed, former Union ministers Yashwant Sinha and Arun Shourie along with activist advocate Prashant Bhushan moved the apex court with a plea for a direction to the CBI to register FIR for alleged irregularities in the deal.
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.
Trump administration says its war in Iran has been 'terminated' before 60-day deadline
Washington (AP): The Trump administration is arguing that the war in Iran has already ended because of the ceasefire that began in early April, an interpretation that would allow the White House to avoid the need to seek congressional approval.
The statement furthers an argument laid out by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth during testimony in the Senate earlier Thursday, when he said the ceasefire effectively paused the war. Under that rationale, the administration has not yet met the requirement mandated by a 1973 law to seek formal approval from Congress for military action that extends beyond 60 days.
A senior administration official, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the administration's position, said for purposes of that law, “the hostilities that began on Saturday, Feb 28 have terminated.” The official said the US military and Iran have not exchanged fire since the two-week ceasefire that began April 7.
While the ceasefire has since been extended, Iran maintains its chokehold on the Strait of Hormuz, and the US Navy is maintaining a blockade to prevent Iran's oil tankers from getting out to sea.
Under the War Powers Resolution, the law that sought to constrain a president's military powers, President Donald Trump had until Friday to seek congressional authorisation or cease fighting. The law also allows an administration to extend that deadline by 30 days.
Democrats have pushed the administration for formal approval of the Iran war, and the 60-day mark would likely have been a turning point for a swath of Republican lawmakers who backed temporary action against Tehran but insisted on congressional input for something longer.
“That deadline is not a suggestion; it is a requirement,” said Sen Susan Collins, R-Maine, who voted Thursday in favour of a measure that would end military action in Iran since Congress hadn't given its approval. She added that “further military action against Iran must have a clear mission, achievable goals, and a defined strategy for bringing the conflict to a close."
Richard Goldberg, who served as director for countering Iranian weapons of mass destruction for the National Security Council during Trump's first term, said he has recommended to administration officials to simply transition to a new operation, which he suggested could be called “Epic Passage,” a sequel to Operation Epic Fury.
That new mission, he said, “would inherently be a mission of self-defence focused on reopening the strait while reserving the right to offensive action in support of restoring freedom of navigation.”
“That to me solves it all,” added Goldberg, who is now a senior adviser at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a hawkish Washington think tank.
During testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee on Thursday, Hegseth said it was the administration's “understanding” that the 60-day clock was on pause while the two countries were in a ceasefire.
Katherine Yon Ebright, counsel at the Brennan Center's Liberty and National Security Program and an expert on war powers, said that interpretation would be a “sizeable extension of previous legal gamesmanship” related to the 1973 law.
“To be very, very clear and unambiguous, nothing in the text or design of the War Powers Resolution suggests that the 60-day clock can be paused or terminated,” she said.
Other presidents have argued that the military action they've taken was not intense enough or was too intermittent to qualify under the War Powers Resolution. But Trump's war in Iran would certainly not be such a case, Ebright said, adding that lawmakers need to push back against the administration on that kind of argument.
