Attorney General KK Venugopal: These documents should not have been produced before SC. We are claiming privilege under Section 123 of Evidence Act
The Centre's decision to block the SC from viewing the 'leaked' Rafale documents by claiming 'privilege' met with strong disapproval from the three judges, who reserved orders on the govt's objection
Attorney General KK Venugopal: These documents should not have been produced before SC. We are claiming privilege under Section 123 of Evidence Act
Judges: Your RTI Act Section 22&24 does not exclude defence organisations. You are bound to disclose information
Attorney General KK Venugopal: Even Article 19(2) places reasonable restrictions on citizens in the interest of sovereignty and security. Public interest has to be confined within the scope of this exception. The court should not extend it.
Judges: Framers of RTI Act have made a complete departure ahead of the law existing in UK and US. Your own government has said file notings must be shown. All restrictions have gone with the coming of RTI Act
Attorney General KK Venugopal: Security of state overrides everything else and makes it an offence under Official Secrets Act. RTI Act also makes exceptions while exempting intelligence and security organisations.
Judges: When Parliament passed RTI, it intended to bring a revolution. Let us not go back. Let us go forward. Can even the court not see the document, whether it is a note or inter-ministerial transaction?
Attorney General KK Venugopal: We need to respect the statute. But to decide on privilege, you can examine the document. Turn to P4
Judges: According to you, these documents have been published unauthorisedly and made available to public and we should not look into as it has implications on national security. We will consider your request in the light of RTI Act and OSA.
Prashant Bhushan: Privilege can be claimed only against unpublished documents. All these documents have been published and are in public domain. The test to determine privilege is to see if its disclosure is in public interest.
Prashant Bhushan: CAG report on Rafale has details of 10 other defence purchases. Not in one case has the pricing been redacted, as done in Rafale deal. Even the government cannot ask us source of information as in the 2G or Coal block allocation, court accepted the document without asking for its source. Press Council Act protects journalists too from disclosing source.
Attorney General KK Venugopal: We were bound by an inter-government agreement not to disclose pricing. A third party has breached it. Court should decide whether they too should go into it.
Judges: All we are concerned is with your preliminary objection. Only when we are satisfied, we will go ahead.
Attorney General KK Venugopal, Prashant Bhushan and Arun Shourie
Prashant Bhushan: No objection was taken by the government in the first round when we produced file noting with regard to the inter-government agreement on Rafale. Even in the Pentagon Papers case, the US court did not block New York Times from publishing secret military documents despite government seeking a restraint.
Attorney General KK Venugopal: India has given solemn undertaking to France. The Rafale is sold to other countries also. It is in the interest of France to ensure the price of deal with India is kept secret.
Arun Shourie: While claiming privilege, government has accepted it is genuine. All the court needs to find out is whether it is relevant to our petition. The disclosure of present document is part of a series of documents released by us since November 2018.
){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 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}