Questions will be raised on how Supreme Court judgment got crucial facts, like CAG report on Rafale being examined by PAC, wrong.
Does the Narendra Modi government stand vindicated in the Rafale deal? Yes and no.
For, although the Supreme Court’s dismissal of the PILs seeking probe into the Rafale deal comes as a shock for most Congress supporters, the judgment does leave a lot of elbow room for the Congress to exploit.
Government has won
It is only to the extent that the Supreme Court has ruled that it finds “no reason for any intervention by this court on the sensitive issue of purchase of 36 defence aircrafts by the Indian Government”.
This doesn’t prevent Parliament from setting up a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) to probe the Rafale deal. The Supreme Court can’t and hasn’t directed Parliament to take that route.
But following the Supreme Court order, the Modi government will certainly go to town, claiming the Congress’ “lies” have been exposed.
Also read: SC on Rafale PILs: Setback for Rahul’s campaign or lesson not to politicise defence deals?
The SC order also grants the government a shield against the charge of “chowkidar chor hai”, which has been levelled by Congress president Rahul Gandhi repeatedly. The court’s order in very clear terms said that it did not “find any substantial material on record to show that this is a case of commercial favouritism to any party by the Indian Government”.
But, Modi government sceptics will say that the focus should be on the court’s choice of words here: “material on record”. What if new facts emerge later?
Congress hasn’t lost either
The Congress – its attack could be blunted after today’s order – hasn’t exactly lost the big war. The Supreme Court order clearly says that today’s judgment is “primarily from the standpoint of the exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution of India which has been invoked in the present group of cases”.
In saying this, the court is acknowledging that the decision is based on the limited scope of judicial scrutiny in terms of Article 32 of the Constitution.
While our courts, including the Supreme Court, are known to have crossed the lakshman rekha of judicial propriety in the past, in the current case it has held itself back, thereby acknowledging that it cannot convert itself into an investigation agency while hearing a plea under Article 32.
Also read: Supreme Court merely sniffing secret envelopes to see if there’s a scam in Rafale deal
Nothing prevents Rahul Gandhi and his supporters from continuing to question the deal. Also, if tomorrow, the opposition or any concerned citizen wants to file a criminal case against anyone, either within or outside the government, on the Rafale issue, that option is still open.
Also read: Everything you wanted to know about Rafale and did not know who to ask
All eyes on CAG now
The Supreme Court certainly seems to have got this one wrong.
It claims the “report of the CAG (on Rafale) has been examined by the Public Accounts Committee” and that “only a redacted portion of the report was placed before the Parliament, and is in public domain.” The Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) has not submitted its report.
How could the Supreme Court allow this factual inaccuracy to creep into such a sensitive judgment?
While it is certainly true that CAG is performing a financial audit of the Rafale deal, the report has not been tabled in Parliament – redacted or otherwise – so far.
In fact, sources in the CAG have told ThePrint that the report has “still not been finalised” and may be sent to Parliament before the Budget Session next year if it is finalised by then.
Incidentally, the Congress delegation has met the CAG twice in the last three months to seek an early report in the case.
Even former BJP minister Yashwant Sinha who was a petitioner in the case had asked CAG to give the report at the earliest.
What happens to investigation in France?
While French civil society group Sherpa Association filed a complaint at its National Financial Prosecutor’s Office last month, alleging “potential acts of corruption”, there is still no clarity on which way that investigation is headed.
This fact seems to have been completely missed by the Supreme Court while dealing with the case. If the French investigation throws up something, then it may be difficult for even the Supreme Court to close its doors to the demand for an independent probe in the Rafale deal.
Shockingly, very loose drafting in the note submitted in a sealed cover led to the misinterpretation. Now, the government has moved the SC for correction. What view the SC will take on this faux pas is yet to be known. However, it is not likely that the overall original verdict will undergo any drastic change. The Congress may ask for JPC. But with only four months left for the general elections, I don’t think the government will accede to the request. Most likely scenario is the complete wash out of the session. Will this election fought on the issue of Rafale? I don’t think so. Congress may shout and shout. But with SC verdict in the bag, the BJP can defend the attack effectively. In any case, Rahul Gandhi and his party consider Transfer of Technology (ToT) in defence production as an inviolable and sacrosanct principle. In reality, it is not so. ToT usually comes with so many restrictive clauses that it becomes unviable to produce the defence equipments domestically. These restrictions relate to : restrictions on field of use, volume and territory; ask for prolonged periods of validity (thus precluding its further development by the buyer); restrict any research and development in the field; impose non-competition clauses on the buyers; tie down the buyer to purchase material and parts from the seller; fix their own prices; impose restrictions in the event of the expiry or loss of secret technical knowhow; prevent challenges to the validity of the rights of the seller; impose grant-back provisions which force the buyer to transfer back to the seller, any improvements, inventions, etc.; and lastly, restrict exports. In addition to these, numerous export control arrangements and non-proliferation treaties are also imposed. Lastly, there is also a cost angle. In the 1970s and ‘80s, this aspect was hotly debated when it was noticed that the cost of making the Jaguar aircraft in India would be twice that of buying finished planes from Britain. Reasons for higher costs have been attributed to the costs imposed by the seller firms on patents, licenses, know-how, trademarks, over-pricing of capital goods and equipment supplied, and many others. Thus over-simplistic views about perceived notions on ToT have to be discarded. This is the precise reason why negotiations With Dassualt Aviation on manufacture of Rafale planes in India failed and could not come to any tangible conclusion. Buying 36 Rafale planes in flyaway conditions is only a temporary solution. In the long run, the only way out of this vicious cycle is to focus on indigenous R&D.
“Congress can still fight ?” “Hope springs eternal in human breast”, and nowhere more than in the breasts of ‘wishful thinkers’. ( masquerading as ‘Political analysts’)
Modi government didn’t really win; the court just refused to investigate. It said it cannot look into the wisdom of over 100 planes; it said it cannot look into the rightness or wrongness of the price; then the point is, why did the Supreme Court at all get involved in it? Why did it at all ask for ANY FILES from the government? Do the Supreme Court judges not read the newspapers? Did they not know that the above were indeed the bones of contention — and as a corrolary of the first point, about the need for over 100 planes, the question of suitability of Anil Ambani? If the CJI didn’t have the courage to take the bull by the horn, why did it get involved in the first place — to chicken out in full public glare?
And all these three points STILL REMAIN the burning questions. Has Mr Modi received a certificate from Pakistan and China that there will be no aggression, so there is no need for 126 planes? He is more and more revealing his unsuitability for the chair that he has occupied by guile.
There is an old adage, to hide one lie you have to speak a hundred lies. That’s precisely what’s happening now.
The allegation by raga reminds me the story of thief running shouting ‘thief thief’s
His childhood memories may be the reason. When he was a boy he used to see people coming to his house with suitcases and fix purchases and deals.
Therefore he thinks that every politicians are like his ancestors and every party is like his party
A thief running shouting ‘ thief thief’
1. Congress President Shri Rahul Gandhi has repeatedly made and serious allegations against PM Shri Narendra Modi as regards Rafale aircrafts deal. Now that the Supreme Court has refused to interfere in the Union government’s decision regarding acquisition of aircrafts, citizens are unsure as to what will be the government’s response after possible and probable change in power in the Centre after Lok Sabha election in 2019. 2. Citizens like are not sure that the Congress President is really against corruption. Citizens think that (a) Rahul Gandhi wishes to make use of allegations of corruption to seize power and (b) that Shri Rahul Gandhi is not at all serious about curbing political corruption or about curbing use of black money in elections. 3. Citizens wish that Rahul Gandhi should make a public announcement about what the Congress led government would do about Rafale deal, assuming that UPA govt. comes to power after 2019 Lok Sabha election. Would the Rafale deal be renegotiated, or would it be cancelled? Assuming that allegations of corruption in the Rafale deal are proved to be true, would those who are involved in corrupt deal be tried for corruption and misuse of power? These questions are in citizens’ mind and the need a straight forward answer. Would the Congress president give answers to these questions in national interest?
For a lay person, price is the crux of the issue. Had the apex court addressed the issue on merits and found everything to be perfectly in order, that would have brought an incontestable sense of closure.