AG makes a plea for not having an investigation now in national interest.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday heard review petitions over its earlier verdict on the Rafale deal. The court, in its verdict, had refused to order a probe into the deal on the procurement of 36 Rafale jets from France.
A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi and comprising Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice KM Joseph heard the review petition. The matter has now been adjourned till March 14.
The government on Wednesday told the Supreme Court that documents related to the Rafale aircraft deal have been stolen from the Defence Ministry and threatened The Hindu newspaper with the Official Secrets Act for publishing articles based on them.
Those who put documents on the Rafale deal in the public domain are guilty under the Official Secrets Act and contempt of court, Attorney General K K Venugopal said before a three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi.
An investigation into the theft is on, the attorney general said on a day the newspaper published another article on the fighter jet deal.The bench, also including Justices S K Kaul and K M Joseph, was hearing a batch of petitions seeking a review of its December 14 verdict dismissing all the pleas against the deal procured by India from France.
Former Union ministers Yashwant Sinha and Arun Shourie and advocate Prashant Bhushan, who had jointly filed a petition, alleged that the Centre suppressed crucial facts when the apex court decided to dismiss the batch of PILs against the Rafale deal in December.
When Bhushan referred to an article written by senior journalist N Ram in The Hindu, Venugopal said the write-ups were based on stolen documents.
An FIR has not been registered so far into the theft of documents pertaining to Rafale deal, he added.
The attorney general also told the Supreme Court that the Rafale case pertains to defence procurement which cannot be reviewed judicially.
Referring to the aerial combat with Pakistan last week, he said the country needs the Rafale jet to defend itself "from F-16 fighter planes that recently bombed us".
"Without Rafale how can we resist them," he said, adding that two squadrons of Rafale fighter jets are coming in flyaway condition. The first one will be in September this year, Venugopal said.
With PTI inputs
1. Highlights of the hearing
)
SC in the beginning said it won't look into any supplementary affidavits or other documents not filed before it.
Prashant Bhushan said in his plea that he has not asked for scrapping the deal but wants a court-monitored probe into it. He said that in that aspect, his prayer is different from other petitioners and should be separately dealt with. Bhushan said that the SC gave its judgment based on documents provided in sealed envelops by Centre which had several factual errors.
Critical facts on Rafale suppressed when petition for lodging FIR and investigation was filed, alleged Bhushan. He said that SC would not have dismissed plea for FIR and probe into Rafale deal had there not been suppression of facts.
AG objected to notes referred to by Bhushan saying that they are stolen from Defence Ministry. CJI said hearing advocate Prashant Bhushan does not mean SC taking on record documents on Rafale deal. CJI asked AG to tell after lunch what action has been taken on theft of documents on Rafale deal.
AG sought dismissal of Rafale review petition and perjury application as they 'relied on stolen documents'. AG said today's 'The Hindu' report on Rafale amounts to influencing hearing in SC and is itself a contempt of court.
In hearing after lunch, AG said,"We need Rafale jet to defend our country from F-16 fighter planes that recently bombed us. Without Rafale how can we resist them?" When asked what has the government done on theft in Defence Ministry, AG said, "FIR has not been registered so far into the theft of documents pertaining to Rafale deal
AG told SC that the Rafale case pertains to defence procurement which cannot be reviewed judicially". He also said that court's statement on Rafale may be used to destabilise either govt or opposition, so it should refrain from making it:
SC asked AG about why the documents can't be used if it is critical to the case. AG said that since there is a matter of criminality regarding the documents, it would be prudent for SC to exercise restraint. After intense debate, SC said that it would hear Bhushan's argument without those papers. Bhushan said even without the documents, the case holds as he has given source for most of the other documents. Bhushan alleged that the government gave wrong facts to SC and later said that the judges have misread it.
Finally the hearing was adjourned for the day.
2. Documents have been stolen from Defence Ministry, says AG
)
Attorney General (AG), KK Venugopal told Supreme Court that certain documents were stolen from the Defence Ministry either by public servants and an investigation is pending. We are dealing with defence purchases which involve security of the state. It is a very sensitive case.
AG said documents on Rafale deal relied on by petitioners marked secret and classified, and in violation of Official Secrets Act.
3. Earlier, SC rejected plea for probe in Rafale case
)
In its December 14 order, the Supreme Court had dismissed petitions seeking a probe by a Special Investigation Team (SIT) into the Rafale deal signed two years back, alleging irregularities and corruption in the pact.The court had said that it does not find any substantial material on record to show that this is a case of commercial favouritism to any party by the Government of India. The deal was announced during Prime Minister Narendra Modi's visit to France in April 2015 and the deal was concluded in 2016.
On February 26, in an unusual course of action, the apex court decided to hear the review pleas in open court. According to the normal course of the court, the review petitions are usually heard in chambers .On January 2, petitioners in Rafale fighter jet deal case — Yashwant Sinha, Arun Shourie, both former Union Ministers, and Prashant Bhushan, a noted lawyer — had moved the apex court for review of its Rafale judgment of December 14 . They had asked for recalling of the judgement and had also sought an oral hearing in the open court for their review plea.
Their petition states that the December 14 verdict contained several errors and also it relied upon patently incorrect claims made by the Government in an unsigned note given in a sealed cover to the court, which is a violation of the principle of natural justice. They also alleged that Prime Minister Modi had signed an agreement for 36 Rafale jets on April 10, 2015, without any such requirement of 36 jets being given by the Air Force Headquarters and without the approval of the Defence Acquisition Council (DAC), which are the mandated first steps for any defence procurement.
4. Rafale continues to be political hot-potato
)
Even though the SC has rejected demands for plea in the Rafale deal, the opposition has continued to use it to target the Modi government. Even a CAG report saying that NDA managed a cheaper deal has not stopped the opposition.
PM Modi recently lamented that had the IAF had Rafale,result of their dogfight with Pakistan Armed Forces would have been different.
