Rafale deal: This is different war room and you go to your war rooms
SC after interaction with IAF officers
New Delhi, Nov 14: "This is a different kind of war room and you all can go to your war rooms", said the Supreme Court Wednesday after interacting with senior Indian Air Force (IAF) officers in the case pertaining to import of Rafale fighter jets from France.
Top IAF officers -- Air Vice Marshall J Chalapati, Air Marshal Anil Khosla and Deputy Chief of Air staff, Air Marshal V R Chaudhari -- had to rush to the apex court at a short notice after a bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi said that it wished to interact with IAF officers as the controversy over Rafale fighter jets deal concerns them.
The issue has become a political battlefield with Congress levelling various allegations against the Modi government on the deal.
The Supreme Court Wednesday commenced its crucial hearing on pleas seeking a court-monitored probe into the procurement of 36 Rafale fighter jets from France.
"We are dealing with the requirements of the Air Force and would like to ask an Air Force officer. We want to hear from an Air force officer and not the official of the Defence Ministry on the issue," the bench said when the Attorney General K K Venugopal began his arguments on behalf of the Centre in the pre-lunch session.
Chalapathi, who appeared before the bench also comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and K M Joseph, answered the questions asked by the CJI about the induction of fighter jets by India and said the fifth generation aircraft have niche stealth technology and the electronic warfare capabilities are very very enhanced.
The CJI asked Chalapathi the first question as "What is the latest induction to IAF?"
Chalapathi replied that its Sukhoi Su-30MKI aircraft which is manufactured by Hindustan Aeronautics Limited at Nashik in Maharashtra and Bangalore in Karnataka.
He said that IAF is getting new Su-30MKI aircrafts each year.
The CJI then asked Chalapati that besides Su-30MKI, which aircraft are being manufactured in India.
The officer said that he himself is a pilot and has special liking for Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) being built in Bangalore but is yet to be inducted into IAF.
The CJI also asked the officer which generation aircraft is LCA and Su-30MKI.
Chalapathi said there is no clear definition of generation and as he has flied the LCA which according to him is three and half generation aircraft.
He said both LCA and Su-30MKI are three and half and fourth generation aircrafts respectively but the requirement of IAF at present is of four plus or fifth generations aircrafts.
The CJI asked does it mean that IAF currently requires few squadrons of fourth and fifth generation aircrafts.
Chalapathi replied in affirmative and said, "the fifth generation aircraft have niche stealth technology and the electronic warfare capabilities are very very enhanced".
The CJI Gogoi then asked Chalapati was there any induction made in IAF after Mirage in 1985.
The officer replied in negative which led CJI to observe: "It means since 1985 to 2018 there is zero induction".
The CJI said it is all that they wanted to know from the officials and later asked them to go back to their offices after nearly half an hour saying, "Air Marshals can now leave. This is a different kind of war room and you all can go to your war rooms. Thank You".
The bench then continued with the arguments on the validity of Rafale jets 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.
'How can an accused seek police protection': Uttarakhand High Court asks 'Mohd Deepak'
_vb_44.jpeg)
Nainital (PTI): The Uttarakhand High Court on Thursday reprimanded gym operator Deepak Kumar, who shot into the limelight as “Mohammad Deepak” for taking on Bajrang Dal activists allegedly harassing a Muslim shopkeeper, and asked how can an accused seek police protection.
A single-bench of Justice Rakesh Thapliyal, while hearing Kumar's plea seeking quashing of the FIR, verbally reprimanded him, objecting to his inclusion of unnecessary requests like seeking police protection and action against police officers for alleged 'biased' conduct.
The bench termed such petitions as pressure tactics aimed at influencing the ongoing investigation and sensationalising the entire matter.
The court also questioned the petitioner's justification for seeking police protection when he himself is a "suspected accused."
The court on Tuesday directed the state authorities to file status reports on the action taken in all the FIRs related to the incident.
A case has been registered against Kumar for rioting, causing hurt, and intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace in connection with an incident that occurred on January 26 in Kotdwar.
Deepak Kumar allegedly clashed with Bajrang Dal members who objected to a Muslim shopkeeper, Vakil Ahmed, naming his shop "Baba" in Kotdwar. A video of the incident went viral on social media.
Kumar has approached the high court seeking quashing of the FIR.
In the petition, Kumar also requested the court direct the registration of an FIR under Section 196 of the BNS against those who allegedly made the hate speeches. The petition also requests police protection for Kumar and his family and a departmental inquiry against police officers allegedly responsible for partisan conduct.
During the hearing, the high court expressed concern about the validity of such petitions, saying they were a way to "pressure the investigating agency."
The investigating officer also stated that the petitioner was not in any danger.
The high court questioned the petitioner's rationale for requesting protection despite being a suspected accused himself.
The court remarked that the petitioner is a 'suspected accused' today, and how can a person who is under investigation and is a 'suspected accused' receive police protection.
The bench stated that such relief at this stage is completely unnecessary and appears to be an attempt to pressure the investigating agency.
The court also took a serious view of the request for a departmental inquiry against the police officers and remarked that in the absence of any evidence on record to prove the allegations, making such a request while the inquiry was pending was merely an attempt to influence the proceedings.
During the hearing, it was brought to the court's attention that two FIRs were registered based on the petitioner's complaint. If there is any such complaint, it will also be presented to the court on Friday.
During the hearing, the high court also inquired about the funds the petitioner allegedly received from his supporters following the incident.
According to Deepak, he received approximately Rs 80,000 in donations after the incident, following which he ceased all activity on the account.
_vb_42.jpeg)
