Rafale fighter jet deal (Representational Image)
The Supreme Court is hearing a petition seeking review of its December 14 verdict against a probe into the controversial surrounding the Rafale fighter jet deal.
On Thursday, the petitioners – former Union ministers Yashwant Sinha and Arun Shourie and activist lawyer Prashant Bhushan – claimed in the top court that the Centre misled and played fraud upon the apex court to obtain favourable order in the fighter jet case last December.
In a rejoinder affidavit filed in the apex court, they said the December 14 verdict in the Rafale case should be reviewed as the judgement was obtained through "multiple falsehoods and suppression of material and relevant information".
Hearing concludes in review and contempt petition, the judgment reserved by the Supreme Court. Written submissions can be filed by parties in two weeks.
Supreme Court reserves order on Rafale review petitions against its December 14, 2018 judgement.
Pricing of Rafale deal is covered under Article 10 of inter-government agreement and was not supposed to be discussed in public domain. It’s question of national security and no other court in the world will examine a defence deal on these kinds of arguments: AG K K Venugopal
Your Lordships should not go into it, says AG Venugopal citing jurisdictional limitations. But if Your Lordships still want it, I will, says AG KK Venugopal
AG Venugopal citing precedents with Russia and US when bank guarantee was waived for defence procurements.
What is your response to submission on Lalita Kumari, asks Justice KM Joseph.
AG responds by citing CAG report. Is this how a defence matter is argued, he asks.
This (aircraft) is not for ornamentation. This is essential requirement for protection of each and everyone of us. Nowhere in the world will any such matter be brought before court: AG K K Venugopal
AG refers to CAG report conclusions to buttress claim that the new deal was cheaper They want to question the deal which affects the security of people of this country: AG K K Venugopal
Your Lordships did not want pricing to be disclosed but only asked for procedure. We produced the procedure. Even if there are errors in it, it wont be a ground for review: AG K K Venugopal
Certain original grounds were raised by petitioners. Those grounds have been reagitated by adding various aspects: AG K K Venugopal
Attorney General KK Venugopal commences submissions on behalf of Centre.
You have reproduced sentence from govt note, It breaks my heart that the govt betrayed your trust, Arun Shourie concludes.
Shourie pointing out such errors in the judgment which was a result of wrong submissions govt submissions. There are so many of such errors that they are not accidental: Arun Shourie
Each of the errors in the judgment can be traced to the false submissions of the Central govt to Supreme Court. You (court) placed trust in the govt and govt abused your trust: Arun Shourie.
Govt says all documents can be shared with CAG. Then why cant they share it with the court, asks Arun Shourie.
Several new facts that have emerged. There was a meeting between Ambani and French authorities at the time when Prime Minister issued statement of new deal. Around the same time he gets a huge tax exemption from French govt, submits Prashant Bhsushan