Denying allegations that it misled the Supreme Court on the Rafale deal, the Centre accused the petitioners who levelled allegations of perjury against Indian Air Force and Defence Ministry officials of tarnishing the image of the country's military and defence leadership.
Referring to the selective media leaks and file notings by individual officers involved in the decision-making process, the Centre in its fresh affidavit ahead of the hearing on the review petitions on the Rafale deal on Friday, said that the attempt by the petitioners (two former Union Ministers Yashwant Sinha, Arun Shourie and advocate Prashant Bhushan) was to present a "selective and incomplete picture" to mislead the Court and the public on such an important matter relating to country's security.
The affidavit further stated, "It is highly deplorable to cast aspersions on the honesty, integrity, and morality of IAF officers and senior officers of Defence Ministry. It is nothing short of tarnishing the image of the country's military and administrative leadership through this petition."
What prompted the petitioners to allege perjury was "mismatch" between what Centre gave to Court in sealed cover with what finally became part of the Court order. The Centre admitted there was "mismatch" but said it was not substantial error to doubt the Rafale deal as such, which got clearance from the apex court on December 14, 2018 and the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) in February this year.
Terming the allegations of the petitioners as "misconceived" the Centre told the Court that in high value procurements, the Ministry of Defence follows a protocol which involves a comprehensive and detailed collegiate process before submitting the final proposal to the competent authority for decision-making. In the collegiate process, views are invited from all members who work as a team. The views also include dissent which is discussed and finally concerns are addressed. It is only then the decision is finalized by the entire team and forwarded to the concerned authority.
The information was shared with the Court in sealed covers, the Centre informed, it was forwarded from the Air Headquarters. What was presented was the final decision approved by the Defence Minister, the Defence Acquisition Council (DAC) and Cabinet Committee on Security. Instead, what the petitioners now presented was comments by individual officers, that was not the final decision.
Mismatch
- What prompted the petitioners to allege perjury was “mismatch” between what Centre gave to Court in sealed cover with what finally became part of the Court order.
- Centre admitted it was mismatch but said it was not substantial error to doubt the deal
){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}
 "Rafale aircraft")
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}