Attorney General K.K. Venugopal said Rafale was a matter for experts, not one for judicial review based on media reports & documents.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court Wednesday reserved its judgment on a plea seeking a court-monitored probe on the Modi government’s controversial purchase of 36 Rafale fighter jets from French firm Dassault Aviation.
Before reserving its order, the top court heard arguments from all the petitioners and the central government at length.
Even as the government — represented by Attorney General K.K. Venugopal — defended the purchase, the petitioners sought to poke holes in the deal.
The apex court, on 31 October, had directed the Narendra Modi government to submit details surrounding the purchase of the Rafale jet. The top court’s decision came on a plea jointly filed by former union ministers Arun Shourie and Yashwant Sinha, along with advocate Prashant Bhushan.
The two former ministers, along with advocates M.L. Sharma, Vineet Dhanda and Aam Aadmi Party Rajya Sabha MP Sanjay Singh, sought to quash the controversial deal between India and France.
Though, the government maintained that it followed all norms as prescribed in the Defence Procurement Procedure (DPP) — as finalised in 2013 by the UPA government — it could not detail the steps leading to the 10 April 2015 Paris announcement by Prime Minister Modi and then-French President Francois Hollande that India and France were going to sign the contract for the fighter jets.
Here’s what was said in the court during Wednesday’s proceedings:
Also read: Is Supreme Court right in making Rafale more urgent over Sabarimala and Ram Mandir?
Supreme Court bench
Any discussion on pricing will happen only if these stats are allowed to come into public domain. The decision we now need to take is whether to bring this fact in public domain or not.
(To Indian Air Force officers present in court)
What was the latest acquisition?
What other countries are using the Rafale jets?
How would you classify the jets that we already have? Third generation or fourth generation? And what is the latest now?
Government, represented by Attorney General K.K. Venugopal
This is a matter for experts and not one where judicial review may be undertaken based on media reports and other documents, which is not clear how they are in the (petitioners’) possession.
The big question your lordships should ask is whether this court is competent to review the deal based on what has been filed.
The Inter-Governmental Agreement (IGA) is one of the agreements signed between India and France. Certain information is classified and that can be disclosed only with the permission of the French government. Even the Parliament doesn’t know the details
We had soldiers dying in Kargil War. If there were Rafale jets at the time, we could have saved lives. I have been instructed that they could have shot over 60 km with pinpoint accuracy.
Secrecy is not on the price of aircraft but on weaponry and avionics. Rs 670 crore is the price of the bare-bones jet and not any of the specs. We cannot renegade on agreement with France to disclose confidential information on specs about avionics and the weaponry.
Also read: Arun Shourie leads the charge against Modi government at Supreme Court hearing on Rafale
The petitioners
Advocate Prashant Bhushan
Ham-handed attempt in May 2015 and malafide attempt of the government. Amendment to the rules is with retrospective effect.
Rafale is not available off the shelf nor is it an emergency purchase. These aircraft will start coming in after four years.
The argument that Hindustan Aeronautics Limited would be 2.7 times more expensive (in terms of man-hours and cost) is irrelevant, since this cost would already have been factored in the deal. Even then, the cost of labour here is cheaper than in France.
The contention that the original procurement process could not be concluded due to lack of common understanding between HAL and Dassault Aviation is false….Apparently, on 25.03.2015, Dassault was in final stages of negotiations with India for 126 aircrafts and HAL was to be Dassault’s partner in India. The Indian Air Force chief, Dassault’s CEO, and the HAL chairman were unaware of any new deal.
Moreover, the statement of the CEO of Dassault shows that they were completely satisfied with having HAL as their partner. By 21 March, our price negotiation was 95 per cent done. At the time there was no expression of unease with HAL when the manufacturing was going to be done in India.
Specs of the weapon package on the Rafale jet were in the Request for Proposal (RFP) issued to several vendors in 2007. Hence, this is not a confidential document. Everything was specified in great detail in the RFP.
Rajya Sabha MP Sanjay Singh
The government has already declared the price of the jets — Rs 670 crore apiece — in Parliament.
The Centre is silent on whether approval from the Defence Acquisition Council (DAC) and the Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS) was taken before Prime Minister Narendra Modi announced the deal in France in April 2015.
Advocate M.L. Sharma
The report filed by the Centre shows us that there has been serious fraud while making the decision post-May 2015. The matter must be heard by a five-judge bench.
According to the documents given, negotiations began in May 2015. But in April 2015, the PM had already declared that the deal is done.
“Attorney General K.K. Venugopal said Rafale was a matter for experts, not one for judicial review based on media reports & documents.”
This is height of insolence on the part of this government-paid law officer, that he is now questioning if the Supreme Court is even qualified to hear the matter! It involves no rocket science; let this Mr know-all only enlighten us on a few commonsensical queries:
1) does this magic number “36” figure in any file notifications prior to its announcement by Mr Modi?
2) if there was a “security urgency”, can he establish that claim? All countries keep updating their armaments through their annual budgets. That’s a mundane matter. Where was the “India-centric emergency”? Does he have proof of that? Are there any intelligence reports, BEARING DATES from pre-2015 period when Mr Modi surprised everyone with the 36-aircraft announcement, which underline this urgency? Are those intelligence reports also presented in a sealed cover to the apex court? Or are we to only take Mr Modi’s word for it, which might have been based on a mere layman’s paranoia, or SOMEONE ELSE’S ulterior motives? (I am of course hinting at ADAG Group)
3) was that paranoia-based “security urgency” the reason for paying 1000 crores extra for each aircraft?
4) if yes, then has even one aircraft been delivered to date to assuage that urgency? “Urgent need” for 36 aircraft should have meant that all should have flown in by now….
If not, if this number “36” is just a figment of one man’s fancy who apparently knew nothing about the logic of 126 aircraft which were originally requisitioned for BHARAT MATA’S DEFENCE, then this contract should be cancelled, and the other competitor, EURO FIGHTER should be brought back into the reckoning because it too was found meeting all specifications like the Rafale, and was offering the same configuration as Rafale at a 20% CHEAPER PRICE.
Where do you want the “experts” to come in on this, Mr Venugopal? Please spell it out. Those IAF officers who mentioned the name of EURO FIGHTER at one stage were “experts” by your definition, or were they not? Or only those who are “paid to be called experts” like you are experts?
According to one observer, AVM Chalapati contributed more to presenting the government’s case effectively than the Attorney General did. Especially his telling remark that there have been no inductions after 1985. I am not a lawyer, but telling the apex court, Figure out if you are competent to review the Rafale case is not the most elegant turn of phrase. The Court has already made it clear that it is not going into the suitability of the aircraft, for that is also not the petitioners’ grievance. At this stage, the Court has also not addressed the pricing issue, till it decides whether this information can be brought into the public domain. What was before the Court today was the procedure followed for decision making and the issue of offsets, in relation to what MoD has framed to be its policies. I think someone of the stature of Shri Harish Salve would have done more justice to the brief.