Friday, February 3, 2023
HomeJudiciarySC dismisses petitions seeking Rafale probe, drops contempt case against Rahul Gandhi

SC dismisses petitions seeking Rafale probe, drops contempt case against Rahul Gandhi

Supreme Court holds that there are no grounds to file an FIR into the Rafale deal. It also drops contempt proceedings against Rahul Gandhi in related case.

Text Size:

New Delhi: The Supreme Court Thursday dismissed a batch of review petitions seeking a probe into the Narendra Modi government’s procurement of 36 Rafale fighter jets from France.

The court said there were no grounds to order an FIR into the case.

“We hold that earlier verdict in Rafale probe was well within the contours of Article 32 and hence does not merit review,” ruled the three-judge bench.

The court also dropped contempt proceedings against Congress leader Rahul Gandhi in a related case.

“Person holding such an office should be more careful. Since he has rendered unconditional apology, we will not proceed. We order a word of caution for him,” said the court.

The matter was being heard by a bench of CJI Ranjan Gogoi and Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and K M Joseph.

The ruling comes over six months after it reserved its verdict on a batch of petitions seeking review of its 14 December 2018 judgment which had dismissed a plea challenging India’s agreement with France to buy 36 Rafale fighter jets.

The court had also reserved its order on the related contempt proceedings against Gandhi over his attribution of his “chowkidar chor hai” remark to the Supreme Court. The then Congress president had made the remark over the Rafale controversy alleging corruption on part of Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

‘Material facts concealed by Centre’

During the hearings in the Supreme Court, senior lawyer and petitioner Prashant Bhushan had referred to various aspects of the Rafale deal, including alleged suppression of material facts from the court.

Citing a February 2019 report by The Hindu based on official documents, Bhushan referred to alleged parallel negotiations for Rafale being undertaken by the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO). He added that three members of the Indian Negotiation Team had objected to the PMO’s parallel negotiations.

In the submissions made by the government while the court was hearing the earlier plea in the Rafale controversy, there was no mention of PMO’s alleged role in the negotiations.

Bhushan argued that a prima facie cognisable offence has been committed and it warranted registration of the FIR.

Review grounds same as previous plea

Appearing for the Centre, attorney general K.K. Venugopal had sought dismissal of the review petitions while stating that the basic grounds for seeking a review are the same as in the main petition.

Referring to the documents cited in the Hindu report, Venugopal argued that the petitioners are seeking review of the 2018 judgment on the basis of secret “stolen documents”. However, he later clarified that he meant that the petitioners used “photocopies of the original” papers, deemed secret by the government.

Venugopal also referred to the secrecy clause of the inter-governmental agreement between India and France in the Rafale deal.

Contempt case against Rahul Gandhi

A Supreme Court bench headed by Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi had also reserved its verdict in a related criminal contempt case against then Congress president Rahul Gandhi filed by BJP MP Meenakshi Lekhi.

The court’s move came after Gandhi told SC that he had already tendered unconditional apology for “wrongly attributing” his “chowkidar chor hai” remarks and the criminal contempt proceedings against him should be closed.

Appearing for Gandhi, senior advocate and Congress leader Abhishek Manu Singhvi told the court that the Congress president has already tendered unconditional apology and expressed regret.

However, senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for Lekhi, said Gandhi’s apology should be rejected and action must be taken against him.

Subscribe to our channels on YouTube & Telegram

Support Our Journalism

India needs fair, non-hyphenated and questioning journalism, packed with on-ground reporting. ThePrint – with exceptional reporters, columnists and editors – is doing just that.

Sustaining this needs support from wonderful readers like you.

Whether you live in India or overseas, you can take a paid subscription by clicking here.

Support Our Journalism


  1. It’s a tight slap on those who were arguing on behalf of a lost out in the race aircraft manufacturer , time to investigate who’s behind this petitions!

  2. Who decides the procedure, government or the SC ? Who decides the price, Government or the SC ? On both the counts if the Government has not done a satisfactory job the voter will throw out the government. Appreciating that on both the aspects the SC seems to have made it clear that it will not interfere unless there is prima facie evidence of corruption or financial wrongdoing.
    The two great ex ministers with an equally great lawyer and a renowned journalist with his sidekicks,despite their stellar track record of earlier exposes failed to present basic acceptable evidence of corruption, even to start an investigation. Procedure and Price has no relevance unless there is a financial wrongdoing. THE PROCEDURES ARE MEANT TO PREVENT FINANCIAL WRONGDOING. Similarly the PRICE OBVIOUSLY HAD TO BE THE BEST IN ABSENCE OF ANY FINANCIAL WRONGDOING.
    People with great experience both in running governments and private businesses, did appreciate that pushing forward the procedure and price was bound to fail so they tried to connect the off-set to make it look like the corruption. They hoped that their past records of fighting corruption could help them. The reason for doing it is best known to them unless it was de-mo or denial of cabinet berths.
    Modi government survives on the clean image and impeccable personal integrity of the PM, may be that was sought be destroyed.

  3. What about the “letter of comfort” part? There is nothing binding on Dassalt, no answerability on their part, only a letter of comfort is given by the French government that everything will go well. Two questions : 1) do all French companies never offer bank guarantee etc to any of their customers, 2) does the French government offer such letters of cumfort for all French companies’ customers?

    This Rafale deal is shocking beyond words. Supreme Court’s judgement is not shocking after the Babri verdict two days ago.

Comments are closed.

Most Popular