SC says perplexed over separate listing of contempt case against Rahul Gandhi, Rafale review pleas
New Delhi: The Supreme Court Monday said it was "little perplexed" over separate listing, contrary to its order, of the pleas seeking review of its verdict in Rafale case and the contempt plea against Congress President Rahul Gandhi for wrongly attributing to the apex court his "chokidar chor hai" remark against Prime Minister Narendra Modi.
A special bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi said it had made it clear earlier that both the matters would be heard together but despite that, the contempt petition was not listed for hearing along with the review pleas on Monday.
The bench, also comprising Justices S K Kaul and K M Joseph, was told that the contempt petition against Gandhi was listed for hearing on May 10.
"We are little perplexed that the two cases are listed on two different dates when the order was that these matters will be heard together," the bench observed.
"This is the problem. There was order for listing both the matters together. We had dictated the order in an open court but it says one case on May 6 and other on May 10. How can this be done?," it said.
After a brief hearing, the bench ordered that the review pleas and contempt petition against Gandhi be listed together for hearing on May 10.
"The present matters and contempt petition (criminal)... be listed together on May 10 at 2.00 PM," the bench said.
"We make it clear that the hearing scheduled for May 10 would be taken up and parties shall make an endeavour to complete the same on the said date. Rejoinder to the replies of Union of India may be filed, in the meantime," the bench said in its order.
At the outset, advocate Prashant Bhushan, who is one of the petitioners in the case along with former Union ministers Yashwant Sinha and Arun Shourie, told the bench that there were three pleas before the court.
Bhushan said besides the review plea, there were two other applications -- one seeking perjury action against unknown government servants for allegedly misleading the court during the Rafale case hearing earlier and the other for production of certain documents.
Bhushan said he would argue on the review plea and application for production of certain documents
and the court should allow Shourie to argue on the perjury application.
"Where is the connected matter of contempt?," the bench asked.
Senior advocate Vikas Singh, appearing for one of the petitioner lawyers, Vineet Dhandha, referred to the apex court's April 30 order and said the contempt petition was listed for hearing on May 10.
"We had said that both the matters will be listed together," the bench said.
When Bhushan said the court should hear his arguments on the review plea for an hour, the CJI said, "My brother (Justice Kaul) has to take up miscellaneous matters in his court".
After the court dictated the order, Bhushan said that the Centre has not filed reply on the perjury application.
Attorney General K K Venugopal, appearing for the Centre, said no notice was issued to the government on the perjury application.
To this, the bench told Venugopal, "Did we issue any notice to the application for production of documents? But, you have filed your reply to this application".
Bhushan also told the court that he would file rejoinder to the Centre's affidavit which was filed last week.
Gandhi had made the contemptuous remark, "chowkidar chor hai", against Modi, which the apex court had said was wrongly attributed to it.
The top court had on April 30 given another opportunity to Gandhi for filing one more affidavit for his remark.
Though Gandhi, through his counsel, admitted that he made a mistake by wrongly attributing the remark to the Supreme Court, it observed that in the affidavit filed earlier, at one point the Congress President admitted the mistake and at one point denied making contemptuous remarks.
In its December 14, 2018 verdict, the apex court had said there was no occasion to doubt decision-making process in the procurement of 36 Rafale fighter jets from France and dismissed all the petitions seeking an investigation into alleged irregularities in the Rs 58,000 crore deal.
The top court had said there was no substantial evidence of commercial favouritism to any private entity.
Later, in a setback to the Centre, the apex court had on April 10 allowed the plea relying on leaked documents for seeking review of its Rafale verdict and dismissed the government's preliminary objections claiming "privilege" over them.
The Rafale fighter is a twin-engine Medium Multi Role Combat Aircraft manufactured by French aerospace company Dassault Aviation.
A deal to procure the jets was signed between India and France in 2015. The delivery is expected to begin in September this year.
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.
