Rafale Deal: What Has Happened so Far
The Centre had on Monday handed over a 14-page document to the petitioners in the case.
advertisement
The Supreme Court will pronounce the judgment in Rafale deal case on Friday, 14 December. The hearing of the case will begin at 10.30 am. Earlier on 14 November, SC had reserved its verdict on petitions seeking a court-monitored probe into Rafale deal.
In compliance with Supreme Court’s demand of having a word with officials from Indian Air Force (IAF), a team of Air Force officers comprising Air Marshal Alok Khosla and Air Vice Marshal J Chalapathi reported to the court after lunch.
The Attorney General has further alleged that the HAL wanted a longer time slot, 2.7 times more than what Dassault was taking.
He added that the offset partner has to be selected by the vendor, reported Bar and Bench.
- During the hearing, the court agreed that different aspects on pricing need not be discussed now
- AG Venugopal stated that the reason behind the government not wanting to disclose the price is due to the intergovernmental agreement
- On 12 November, the Centre had handed over a 16-page document titled “Details of the steps in the decision-making process leading to the award of 36 Rafale fighter aircraft order” to the petitioners in the case
(At The Quint, we question everything. Play an active role in shaping our journalism by becoming a member today.)
(With inputs from PTI)
Rafale Deal Hearing Commences in Supreme Court
Petitioner advocate ML Sharma told the Supreme Court that report filed by the government in the court reveals that there has been serious fraud while making the decision post May 2015.The petitioner urges Supreme Court that the matter be heard by a five-judge bench
“Negotiations between Indian and French side started in May 2015 but PM Modi announced the deal in April 2015. It’s a serious fraud,” petitioner Sharma said as he began his submission, reported Bar and Bench.
The document says deal for purchase of 36 aircraft was first announced and then negotiations were held, ML Sharma told the court. Attorney General should file reply on affidavit, Bar and Bench reported.
The statement of the Rafale jets deal between PM Modi and France President was announced in 2015 which was before the approval of cabinet committee on security (CCS).
Crucial Hearing on Rafale Deal Pricing Begins in Supreme Court
The Supreme Court on Wednesday, 14 November, began a crucial hearing on the pricing details of the 36 Rafale fighter jets, days after the Centre submitted the information in a sealed cover.
A bench, comprising Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justices SK Kaul and KM Joseph, is hearing the matter. Petitioners, who have sought a court-monitored investigation into the Rafale deal, have made their submissions before the court.
The government had also provided the pricing details of the Rafale jets to the top court in a sealed cover.
The petitioners are likely to respond to the contents of the documents, that say that the deal for 36 Rafale jets was negotiated on "better terms" and the Defence Procurement Procedure laid out in 2013 was "completely followed."
The Centre has maintained that the Cabinet Committee on Security’s (CCS’) approval was secured before the deal was inked with France.
The details of the decision-making process and pricing were placed in the court in compliance with its October 31 order.
Pricing of the Deal was Revealed in the Parliament Twice: Petitioner
Senior advocate Sanjay Hegde representing the third petitioner Sanjay Singh has submitted that pricing of the deal was revealed in the Parliament twice. Submission of Attorney General that pricing details cannot be made public is unacceptable, Hegde told the court.
There is a huge difference of price per aircraft in the revised deal, the senior advocate argued.
“The Defence Acquisition Council (DAC) assessed the need for 126 aircrafts in 2001. How did it change from 126 to 36 aircraft in 2018,” counsel for Singh argued.
Senior Advocate Prashant Bhushan Files Written Response
Senior Supreme Court lawyer Prashant Bhushan, appearing for former Union minister Arun Shourie, who is also one of the petitioners in the Rafale deal case, submitted before the three-judge Apex Court that only in three situations, the intergovernmental route can be resorted to, reported ANI.
"The documents were handed over to us on Monday after noon. We have burned the midnight oil and prepared this response," Bhushan said as submitted his written response.
“How did the PM have the power to change the deal, remove the technology transfer under the Make in India and add the offset obligations?" Bhushan said as he argued that under offset guidelines, Defence Minister has to approve all offset contracts.
“The government cannot say that it does not know about the offset partner. That is against procedure,” Bhushan pointed out in his argument.
“The French government has not given any sovereign guarantee. What if Dassault is paid by the government and they don't deliver? There is no guarantee by the French government that Dassault will deliver,” Bhushan told the court.
Prashant Bhushan has further argued that nobody knew that the deal was being changed. “Nobody, not the DAC, not the CCS, not the Defence Ministry, knew that the deal was being changed,” Bhushan told the court.
He also used the Dassault statement to rubbish government’s claims that the old deal had to be scrapped because of troubles between Dassault and HAL.
Govt Hiding Behind Secrecy Agreement: Bhushan
Talking about the pricing clause and stating that the government has not disclosed the prices, Bhushan told the court, "Government is hiding behind the secrecy agreement.” However, he added that the secrecy agreement does not apply.
“How does the issue of price compromise national security? If I may point out, it was disclosed twice in Parliament formally,” he argued.
Bhushan stated that selection of Reliance as the offset partner amounts to an undue advantage for Anil Ambani's group. He also pointed out that Dassault says it chose Reliance because it owned land, but land was only alloted after the selection was made.
Concluding his arguments, Bhushan stressed that CBI has to register an FIR as per Lalita Kumari judgment and conduct a probe.
Petitioner Arun Shourie Questions 'Ill-Experienced' Reliance's Selection
“A company of the experience of Dassault which was set up in 1929 would not have chosen a company here with no experience at all,” petitioner Arun Shourie argued, reported Bar and Bench.
“Dassault itself has been in serious financial difficulty,” he added.
Quoting a statement of former defence minister, Shourie said, “Mr. Manohar Parrikar was unaware of this deal.”
“The decision was taken by PM Modi without consulting the then Defence Minister Parikkar. This fact is supported by statements of Parikkar ,” Live Law reported, quoting Shourie.
Contrasting the government’s stand, Shourie said that Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) is fully capable to produce aircraft and rubbished statements by government that HAL is not capable.
Want to Meet Someone from Indian Air Force: CJI Gogoi
Demanding that an official from the Indian Air Force comes forth, Chief Justice Gogoi told Attorney General KK Venugopal, “We want to meet someone from the Indian Air Force, not from the ministry. After all, we are dealing with the Air Force,” reported Bar and Bench.
“He will be here soon,” replied AG KK Venugopal.
Discussion on Pricing of Rafale Jets Not Needed At The Moment, Says CJI
During the hearing, the court agreed that different aspects on pricing need not be discussed now, reported Bar and Bench.
"It needs to be debated only if the Court decides that the aspects on pricing needs to come in public domain," CJI Ranjan Gogoi said, to which the Attorney General readily agreed.
AG Venugopal stated that the reason behind the government not wanting to disclose the price is due to the intergovernmental agreement. He added that the RTI Act doesn't apply as security-related matters are an exception.
“This is not a matter for judicial intervention. Since the allegations are based on media reports and rumours,” Venugopal said, reported Live Law.
Bench Re-Assembles at 2 After Lunch Break, Hearing Commences
In compliance with Supreme Court’s demand of having a word with officials from Indian Air Force (IAF), a team of Air Force officers comprising Air Marshal Alok Khosla and Air Vice Marshal J Chalapathi have reported to the Supreme Court.
CJI Gogoi asked the Air Force officials about the latest induction in the force, to which he was told, it’s Sukhoi 30, reported Bar and Bench.
Following this, CJI enquired on the generation of the proposed Rafale aircraft.
“5th generation because it has stealth technology,” an IAF officer replied.
The Attorney General has further alleged that the HAL wanted a longer time slot, 2.7 times more than what Dassault was taking.
He added that the offset partner has to be selected by the vendor, reported Bar and Bench.
CJI also asked the Attorney General which other countries have bought Rafale jet from Dassault. “Qatar, Egypt and France,” the Attorney General told the court.
On being asked whether France has given sovereign guarantee of providing the aircraft, the Attorney General clarified that while no such assurance has been given, a letter of comfort has been provided by France.
SC Reserves Verdict on Petitions Demanding Probe
Supreme Court reserves verdict on a bunch of petitions demanding a probe into the Rafale Deal.
You Can Return to Actual War Rooms: CJI to Air Marshals
CJI Gogoi, after having a conversation with the Air Marshals asked them to return to the “actual war rooms.”
“The Air Marshal and Vice-Marshals can go back. It is a different war game here in court. You can go to the actual war rooms,” he said.
Those Levelling Allegations Are Illiterate: VK Singh
MoS MEA VK Singh said that those levelling allegations against the Rafale deal are illiterate.
“Those who are making accusations are illiterate. They don't have any knowledge about it. So it won't be right to further comment on it,” he said.
SC to Give Verdict on Rafale Case Tomorrow
The Supreme Court will pronounce the judgment in Rafale deal case on Friday, 14 December. The hearing of the case will begin at 10:30 am.