The government files application saying the Supreme Court misinterpreted a note, causing a controversy that must be ‘rectified’.
New Delhi: The Narendra Modi government filed an application Saturday seeking correction of two lines in the controversial ‘paragraph 25’ of the Supreme Court order on the Rafale fighter jet deal.
The top court “misinterpreted” a note filed along with the sealed cover, said the government application, as it sought to correct ‘grammatical errors’ in the order.
The court observation has resulted in a controversy that must be rectified in the interest of justice, it added.
In the contentious paragraph, the top court Friday said that the pricing details of the deal have been shared with the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) and the CAG report has been examined by the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) of the Parliament.
“Only a redacted portion of the report was placed before the Parliament, and is in public domain,” the court order read.
In its application, the government said that it’s factually correct that it shared the price details with the CAG.
However, it added that the second part of the sentence in the judgment, with regard to the PAC, is to the effect that “the report of the CAG is (emphasis added) examined by the PAC. Only a redacted version of the report is (emphasis added) placed before the Parliament and in public domain.”
The government filed for the clarification after PAC chairman and Congress leader Mallikarjun Kharge accused the Centre of misleading the top court.
On Friday, the apex court threw its weight behind the government’s deal with France for the purchase of 36 Rafale fighter aircraft, dismissing petitions seeking a probe.
Also read: Narendra Modi government may have won this Rafale round, but Congress can still fight
‘Cheated the people’
As the government moved the Supreme Court for ‘rectification’, the Congress alleged that the Centre misled the top court and committed contempt of court and perjury.
“The BJP has hoodwinked the nation and cheated the people. Now it has the guts to do the same to mislead the apex court,” said Congress spokesperson Abhishek Manu Singhvi.
“There is serious misrepresentation of vital, significant facts to the apex court. This amounts to contempt (of court), (breach of) privilege as well as perjury,” he said.
Earlier in the day, Kharge said, “I will request the PAC members to call the Attorney General (AG) and the Comptroller and Auditor General to ask them when the CAG report on the Rafale deal was tabled in Parliament.”
Kharge refuted the facts as mentioned in the court order Friday. “When has the CAG discussed the PAC report? It has not been tabled so far.”
“Wrong information is being fed in the Supreme Court, it is a matter of shock. The government should apologise for misleading Supreme Court by presenting wrong facts on CAG report before Supreme Court,” said Kharge.
The judgment caused an uproar in the Parliament, with the government facing criticism from all quarters over “misleading” the Supreme Court.
With PTI inputs.
The position of a Prime Mister is a custodianship of ethics and conduct of good governance founded in total respect for law and parliamentary institutions. If the evidence provided by the state is in any way misrepresenting by design or default or even mistake, the Law Minister and Attorney General would be the first in line to be suspended and an inquiry is set to see how such blunder did take place! The Supreme Court Judges in the Rafael Deal case would have demanded the agenda, minutes and signed copies of detailed documents that was claimed to have put before the Public Audit Committee and others with clear physical witness statements. It sounds like ‘a pre-draft must have been presented by someone’ for the Judges to merely read out. The Judges should have applied their minds to ensure there was clarity in the judgment areas of limitations a refrained from what has been put forward a ‘clean chit’ where ambiguity was obvious. The Judges should have directed issues that were not within their realms to be referred to the Parliamentary Processes such as Joint Parliamentary Committee to reaffirm fair play of justice and a pathway to seek explanations and conclusions with the Parliamentary boundaries. It is understandable that the Supreme Court would be reluctant to resort to saying anything that reduces the credibility or a PM or indeed indulges in any defense matters. Their verdict has vindicated many beliefs and suspicions that – even in the case of late Judge Logiya – judiciary is not independent and instead of making the painful but judicious position of examining details, gives judgments that may have been looking like written by the defendants. आज हमें ये कहना पड़ता है की ‘ जनाब कुछ तो कीजिए, आपकी इज्जत खतरेमें है. भर लोगो आपकी बोली लगा रहे है! – मि जोली ला ला बी फिल्म से लिया गया है.
This clearly shows that the government tried to mislead the SC by claiming the CAG and PAC involvement. The court should declare its verdict as withdrawn because it was based on false inputs, and decide to fully investigate the Rafale deal itself, or decide to constitute a SIT. Most logically speaking, government’s submission of a misleading affidavit shows that it is desperately trying to hide its wrongdoings in this case, so the Supreme Court should order a renegotiation of the deal.
Government knows very well that public (voters) get carried away with the fact that once cleared by Supreme Court means no corruption took place and makes Modi governance great. The public sympathy will go with Modi.
Instead of rafale, the congress had a cause to pursue that may have showed corruption – the adani invoicing scam where modi interfered and transferred tax officials and closed the case.
Why is congress silent on that? Did Adani pay off the congress leadership?
Details may be shared with CAG, but CAG cannot put all the details in his report for PAC for confidential reasons. Otherwise it becomes public and defeats the intention of secrecy.
One may or may not agree with Ms Indira Jaisingh who believes the situation warrants the judgment being recalled. If the apex court thought the financial parameters of the deal have been examined by the CAG and then its findings have been accepted by the PAC, finally brought into the public domain by being placed before Parliament, it would not have felt the need to take up the issue of pricing. That was its initial view, however, after examining the decision making process, it had asked for this information. With this development, the Court might feel the need to revisit some of its findings and conclusions. 2. Whatever the further legal developments that may now follow, it is clear that the judgment will not bring closure to the political controversy that has arisen. It will play out till the general election. Asking for a JPC, at this stage of the Lok Sabha’s life, is part of that political posturing.
Read the judgment. The Supreme Court has already pronounced on the merits. The correction of the typo is not going to alter it.
Wah Modi Wah BJP government