Rafale Jet deal case in Supreme Court has been adjourned till March 14.
Rafale Jet Deal case in Supreme Court: Petitioner Prashant Bhushan tells the court 'In Coalgate and 2G scam cases I brought documents from a whistleblower.'
FIR has not been registered so far into the theft of documents pertaining to Rafale deal, AG tell SC. Attorney General says documents accessed by both (names two Indian news media publication) were stolen documents. Attorney General concludes - PTI
AG tellsUpdate at SC that the documents published by (names an Indian news publication) were not supposed to be brought in public domain. After submitting some documents, AG says (names an Indian news publication) published the documents by omitting the word 'secret' on the top: PTI
Rafale fighter jets are needed although MIG 21 of 1960s performed beautifully against F16. Two squadrons of Rafale fighter jets are coming in flyaway condition; first one will be in September this year, AG tells SC: PTI
AG tells the court that the CAG report on Rafale deal is before the Parliament and will be looked into there. He urges the court to dismiss the review pleas. He says anything at this point from the Supreme Court on the issue of Rafale will be used by the opposition to destabilise the government.
AG says defence procurements cannot be judicially examined
There are numerous instances where the court says that even though the petitioner might not be bonafide, if the cause is good, we can appoint an amicus and hear the matter, CJI said
Attorney General says that can happen in a normal PIL but not in a case regarding purchase of planes which is essential for the survival of the nation
Attorney General says that once a document is a subject matter of determining criminality, the court cannot go ahead and look into the document.
Justice KM Joseph brings up the issue of Bofors. He says in Bofors case there were allegations of criminality as well. Yet the court had looked into the case.
CJI says we can understand that the petitioners have not come to court in a bonafide manner. We can also understand that something that is not bonafide should not be entertained by the court. But the question is if this document is absolutely untouchable by the court.
Attorney General says the review plea ought to be dismissed.
The Attorney General asks the Supreme Court if the government should explain international treaties or declaration of war. He asks if the government should start the process of acquisition all over again? He asks that what will be the signal if the court cancels international treaties?
Attorney General in SC:
Under the official Secrets Act, publishing the Rafale documents as has been done will attract a jail term from 3-14 years. The documents have been published to the whole world. A lot of damage has been done. These documents are not intended to be in the public domain. The need to protect the country against F-16s there are certain areas beyond the competence of the court.
Prashant Bhushan has alleged that the government threatening criminal action against two newspapers and one counsel amounts to intimidation of the petitioners in the Rafale deal.
The Attorney General has replied saying that the documents being relied on by the petitioners are not supposed to be in public domain.
Supreme Court has dismissed Sanjay Singh's plea.
The bench rises for lunch. Hearing to resume post-lunch session
Even before hearing, newspapers make publications to influence the decision of the Court. This is contempt of court: KK Venugopal, Attorney General
Contemplating criminal action against two newspapers and a senior counsel. It’s a matter concerning national security and criminal action will be taken: KK Venugopal, Attorney General
Documents were stolen from the Ministry of Defence: KK Venugopal, Attorney General
There is an inquiry going on regarding who leaked the Rafale documents to the media. They were privileged documents that should not have been leaked. Will take criminal action on it: Counsel for Government
The petitioners were not seeking striking down of the deal, rather an inquiry into the allegations of corruption: Prashant Bhushan
Government officials should be hauled up for perjury for knowingly submitting wrong facts to Court: Prashant Bhushan
The court relied on a lot of erroneous facts which were possibly supplied by the government in a sealed envelope: Prashant Bhushan
If the correct facts had been placed before the court then the outcome of the hearing would have been different. Critical facts were suppressed: Prashant Bhushan
The court did not consider the nature of relief that was sought by the petitioners during the hearing: Prashant Bhushan
CJI Ranjan Gogoi says no media reports will be considered while hearing the review plea.
The bench has assembled to hear the pleas seeking review into apex court's decision in the Rafale deal.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday will hear the petitions seeking a recall and review of its judgment giving a clean chit to the Modi government on acquiring 36 Rafale jet fighters in a ready-to-fly condition from French company Dassault Aviation.
A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi and comprising Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice KM Joseph will hear the review petitions in the open court.
The court allows for review of its own judgment only when it notices some errors, or if there are violations of the principles of natural justice.
Last week, the Supreme Court on Thursday said that it would consider conducting a hearing on a petition seeking review of its verdict in the Rafale case.
Advocate Prashant Bhushan, along with former UPA ministers Yashwant Sinha and Arun Shourie, had moved the apex court seeking a review of its December 14 judgment dismissing a plea seeking a court-monitored probe into the intergovernmental deal between India and France for the purchase of 36 Rafale MMRCA fighters. In response to him, Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi said the court would do something for the listing of the case as a bench is to be constituted for it.
In its December 14 order, the Supreme Court had dismissed petitions seeking a probe by a Special Investigation Team (SIT) into the Rafale deal signed two years back, alleging irregularities and corruption in the pact.
The court had said that it does not find any substantial material on record to show that this is a case of commercial favouritism to any party by the Government of India.