Rafale Deal: Supreme Court to hear petition seeking review of its December 14 verdict (File Photo)
The Supreme Court on Tuesday, February 26, will hear a petition seeking review of its December 14 verdict that had dismissed petitions challenging the deal between India and France for procurement of 36 Rafale fighter jets. In its December 2018 verdict, the top court had rejected a clutch of petitions, including those by former Union ministers Yashwant Sinha and Arun Shourie as also lawyer Prashant Bhushan, seeking judicial scrutiny and court-monitored CBI probe into the Rs 58,000 crore deal, saying there was no occasion to "really doubt the decision making process".
"Supreme Court to hear on February 26 a petition seeking review of its December 14 judgement on Rafale fighter jet deal, in which it had refused to order a probe into the deal of procuring 36 Rafale jets from France," the news agency ANI reported.
Supreme Court to hear on February 26 a petition seeking review of its December 14 judgement on #Rafale fighter jet deal, in which it had refused to order a probe into the deal of procuring 36 Rafale jets from France. pic.twitter.com/O9amuBeuid— ANI (@ANI) February 22, 2019
However, the hearing of the pleas will be conducted in chambers and not in open court. Besides, the top court will also hear the petition filed by AAP's Rajya Sabha MP Sanjay Singh through advocate Dheeraj Singh seeking review of the December 14 verdict.
A day after the bench comprising CJI Ranjan Gogoi and Justices SK Kaul and KM Joseph delivered the verdict, the Centre moved the Supreme Court seeking correction in the judgement where a reference has been made about the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) report and Parliament's Public Accounts Committee (PAC), saying "misinterpretation" of its note has "resulted in a controversy in the public domain".
Later, review pleas were also filed by the petitioners including Sinha, Shourie and Bhushan. Besides, the trio has filed a separate plea seeking initiation of perjury proceedings against central government officials for allegedly giving "false or misleading" information in a sealed cover in the case.
(With inputs from agencies)