SC to pronounce verdict Friday on pleas seeking probe in Rafale fighter jet deal with France
New Delhi, Dec 13: The Supreme Court is scheduled Friday to pronounce verdict on pleas seeking court-monitored probe in the multi-billion dollar Rafale fighter jet deal with France.
A bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi had reserved its verdict on a batch of pleas on November 14.
Advocate M L Sharma was the first petitioner in the case. Later, another lawyer Vineet Dhanda had moved the apex court with the plea for court-monitored probe into the deal.
AAP leader Sanjay Singh has also filed a petition against the fighter jet deal.
After the three petitions were filed, former Union ministers Yashwant Sinha and Arun Shourie alongwith activist advocate Prashant Bhushan had moved the apex court with a plea for a direction to the CBI to register FIR for alleged irregularities in the deal.
The Centre has defended the deal for 36 Rafale fighter jets and opposed public disclosure of the pricing details.
India signed an agreement with France for the purchase of 36 Rafale fighter aircraft in a fly-away condition as part of the upgrading process of Indian Air Force equipment. The deal is estimated to be about Rs 58,000 crore (about USD 8 billion).
The Rafale fighter is a twin-engine Medium Multi Role Combat Aircraft (MMRCA) manufactured by French aerospace company Dassault Aviation.
While reserving the verdict, the apex court had said that the pricing details of Rafale jets could only be discussed after it decides on whether to make it public.
The observation by an apex court bench had came after the government refused to publicly divulge pricing details of the deal, saying it would give advantage to India's enemies.
While hearing a bunch of pleas alleging criminality in Rafale deal and seeking court-monitored probe into it, the apex court had asked wide-ranging questions from the government on issues including lack of sovereign guarantee from the French government, selection of Indian offset partner by the Dassault Aviation and need of entering into Inter-Governmental Agreement (IGA) with France.
The court had taken note of submissions and counter arguments on pricing of the fighter jets with the petitioners alleging that the government has been giving "bogus arguments" and "hiding behind the secrecy clause".
Vehemently defending non-disclosure of price publicly, Attorney General K K Venugopal, appearing for Centre had said that the cost of a bare Rafale jet as per 2016 exchange rate was Rs 670 crore and the disclosure of price of a "fully loaded" aircraft would give an "advantage to the adversaries".
Bhushan had claimed that the Union Law Ministry had red-flagged two issues -- absence of sovereign guarantee by France and international arbitration clause in IGA as per which the arbitration seat would be at Geneva -- but the government went ahead with the deal.
Venugopal had admitted that there was no sovereign guarantee, but said that France has given a 'letter of comfort' which would be good enough as a governmental guarantee.
The court during the hearing on the bunch of pleas had also interacted senior Indian Air Force (IAF) officers and enquired about the requirements of the force.
The IAF officers had emphasised in the apex court the need for induction of 'four plus or fifth' generation fighter aircraft like Rafale, which have niche stealth technology and enhanced electronic warfare capabilities.
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.
When Will This War Finally End?
Three weeks into the US-Iran war, the world is holding its breath. Families in the Gulf are scared. Oil prices are shaking. And quietly, even Washington seems to be asking itself — how do we get out of this?
To understand when this war might stop, we first need to understand why it even started — and why it has not gone the way America planned.
America Walked In Overconfident
When the US launched its attack on Iran on February 28, it had three big beliefs. First, it thought the world was still in its favour — Russia was stuck in Ukraine, China was dealing with its own problems. Second, it believed that heavy bombing alone could shake Iran's leadership and break its will to fight. This is the old "shock and awe" idea — bomb hard, bomb fast, and the enemy will fall. Third, it counted on its many military bases and allies across West Asia to give it total control.
All three beliefs turned out to be wrong.
Iran Hit Back — And Hit Hard
Iran did not collapse. It hit back directly at American bases across the Persian Gulf. Satellite images confirmed that 25 targets were struck across seven US bases in five countries — radar systems, fuel storage, aircraft shelters, supply buildings. Even Donald Trump admitted publicly that he was surprised by Iran's sharp and effective response.
This changed everything.
Suddenly, the US bases that were supposed to be launching pads became weak points. Iran proved it could strike them. This created what experts call "mutually assured destruction" — a situation where both sides can hurt each other so badly that neither can attack freely without suffering serious damage in return. Think of two people standing very close to each other, both holding knives. Neither can strike without getting hurt themselves. That is exactly the position the US finds itself in today.
This is also why Trump quickly pulled back after Israel attacked Iran's South Pars gas field. Iran immediately targeted energy facilities in the Gulf. The risk of a much bigger explosion — economically and militarily — became too real to ignore.
Iran Was Always Misunderstood
Here is something most people do not realise. Iran does not fight like America. The US military is built to travel far, carry heavy weapons, and fight high-tech wars in other people's countries. Iran's military is built differently — simpler, smarter, and designed for one purpose: to make sure anyone who attacks Iran suffers badly in return.
This strategy is called "deterrence by punishment." In plain words — I cannot match you weapon for weapon, but if you hit me, I will hit you back so hard that you will regret it. Iran has spent years building a large stockpile of missiles and drones that are hard to destroy even from the air, and some of which can pass through American and Israeli defence systems. The 12-day war in 2025 already showed the world a glimpse of this.
Because most people judged Iran by American or NATO standards, they completely underestimated it. That was a costly mistake.
So When Does This End?
Three weeks in, America has not broken Iran's military. It has not broken Iran's political unity either. The big goals that Washington and the Pentagon announced at the start now look unrealistic. Public support for the war inside the US is falling. Global markets are nervous. Energy prices are unstable.
Reports, including from Iran's own Foreign Minister, say the US has already quietly tried to push for a ceasefire multiple times. But there is a big gap between what each side wants. The US wants to end the war but still keep its military influence in the region. Iran wants a lasting peace where its security is genuinely respected and the regional balance shifts in its favour. These two positions are almost impossible to bridge right now.
So the honest answer to "when will this war stop" is — not soon, and not easily.
As the real costs of the war become impossible to hide — for American taxpayers, for Gulf economies, for global oil supply — pressure will build on Washington to sit down for serious peace talks. That moment may come. But it will only come when the pain of continuing becomes greater than the pride of not giving in.
There is one more danger. Parts of this conflict are now deeply tied to internal American politics, with hidden groups who may actually benefit from keeping the war going — what strategists call a "fifth column." When powerful people profit from war, peace becomes even harder to achieve.
Until that changes, the world waits. And pays the price.
(Girish Linganna is an award-winning science communicator and a Defence, Aerospace & Geopolitical Analyst. He is the Managing Director of ADD Engineering Components India Pvt. Ltd., a subsidiary of ADD Engineering GmbH, Germany.)
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect the views, policies, or position of the publication, its editors, or its management. The publication is not responsible for the accuracy of any information, statements, or opinions presented in this piece.
