The Centre moved the Supreme Court on Saturday claiming that "an element of misinterpretation" has crept into the judgment on the Rafale deal with regard to the Comptroller and Auditor General's (CAG) report on the multi-crore Rafale deal having been submitted to the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) of the Parliament.
Moving an application within 24 hours of the judgment been pronounced, the Ministry of Defence produced that portion of the sealed cover note it submitted to the Court which only described the procedure to be followed – that once CAG report is ready, it is examined by the PAC. However, the judgment replaced the word 'is' with 'has been' giving an impression that the process has already occurred.
The eight-page application filed in the SC Registry said, "Submission by the Union of India, to the effect that the report of the CAG "is" examined by the PAC, was a description of the procedure which is followed in the normal course, in regard to the reports of the CAG. The very fact that the present tense "is" is used would mean that the reference is to the procedure which will be followed as and when the CAG report is ready."
The application sought to replace the word "has been" with "is" as in the present form, the judgment reads as "the report of the CAG has been examined by the Public Accounts Committee" which is misleading.
The Centre claimed that yet another error has crept in the judgment with regard to the redacted portion of the CAG report. The Centre flagged out that portion saying, "the statement that only a redacted version of the report "is" placed before Parliament, is referred to in the judgment as "only a redacted portion of the report was placed before the Parliament, and is in public domain". Here, the Government claimed that 'is' has become 'was'.
Seeking correction in the two sentences, the Centre said, "Unfortunately, an element of misinterpretation of the statement made in the note/bullet points handed over on behalf of the Union of India in the sealed cover appears to have crept in. This has also resulted in a controversy being raised in the public domain."
What Plea Says
- The Centre claimed the “misinterpretation” has been borne from the note submitted by govt along with the pricing details in two sealed covers
- The note was in form of bullet points and the second one read: “The Govt has already shared the pricing details with the CAG”
- “The report of CAG is examined by the PAC. Only a redacted version of the report is placed before the Parliament and in public domain”
- “The error”, as per Govt’s plea, “appears to have occurred, perhaps, on account of a misinterpretation of a couple of sentences in the handed over note
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
 "Supreme Court")
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}