The Supreme Court on Thursday dismissed the review petitions seeking probe into the Rafale deal. The top court further said it doesn't feel necessary to order FIR or roving inquiry into the Rafale deal case. "We find the review petitions are without any merit," a bench comprising Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi said. The bench also comprised Justices SK Kaul and KM Joseph. The apex court had reserved the verdict on the deal in May this year.

Attorney General (AG) K.K. Venugopal representing the Centre argued before a bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi that there was no"corruption" in the Rafale deal and that the government is bound to maintain secrecy on pricing, as per Inter-Government Agreement (IGA) signedbetween India and France. The AG had insisted that the world over, defencedeals are not examined in a court of law.

Referring to the Rafale deal as a question of nationalsecurity, the AG had told a bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi,"We have signed an IGA, which we are obliged to follow. Rafale is not forornamentation. It is essential for the protection of each and every one ofus....nowhere in the world such matters go before the court."

The AG also told the court that in accordance with Article10 of the IGA, the pricing in the deal cannot be disclosed. "In thismatter, the secrecy clause of the inter-governmental agreement between Indiaand France, pertains to defence deals and not to the award of contract forconstruction of flyover or dams...," said the AG, insisting on thedismissal of review petitions.

What is the Rafale case?

The opposition had alleged that the aircraft, built byDassault Aviation of France, was purchased under a directgovernment-to-government agreement at a much higher price than the onenegotiated for 126 aircraft by the UPA government under an open tender.

Who filed the review petitions and why?

There were two review petitions — one by former UnionMinisters Yashwant Sinha and Arun Shourie and advocate Prashant Bhushan, theother by Aam Aadmi Party Rajya Sabha member Sanjay Singh. They urged theSupreme Court to reconsider its December 14, 2018 verdict dismissing the prayerfor a court-monitored investigation into the India-France deal for the purchaseof 36 Rafale fighter aircraft. A three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court headedby Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi and comprising Justices S K Kaul and K MJoseph, reserved its judgment on the review pleas on May 10.

A history of Rafale case in Supreme Court

Former Union ministers, Yashwant Sinha and Arun Shourie, andactivist lawyer Prashant Bhushan, who have filed the review petitions, contendedbefore the top court that it should set aside December 14, 2018, verdict, whichdismissed their plea for a criminal investigation into the Rafale deal. Later,the apex court reserved verdict on a batch of petitions seeking review of itsDecember 14 judgement.

Bhushan told the various aspects -- alleged suppression ofmaterial facts -- have been hidden from the court, and an FIR should beregistered to undertake criminal investigations. He also pointed out athree-member Indian Negotiation Team (INT) had objected to the parallelnegotiations undertaken by the PMO, and as a consequence, allegedly the dealbecame expensive.

The AG objected to the review petition and said the basicgrounds for seeking review of the December verdict were similar to the main petition,which was not allowed by the apex court. The top law officer also rubbished theallegation of the petitioners that the Centre played a fraud on the courtregarding the information on the deal. "The petitioners are seeking reviewon the base of stolen documents...they committed theft by accessing incompletefile notings of the government departments," said the AG.

Bhushan had argued that eight critical clauses, includingthe one on anti-corruption, were dropped on the deal, and also ignored the objectionof three experts on the pricing of the aircraft deal. "The Centre shouldplace the entire file of the negotiations team before the court...for the dealto go through. The Centre also breached the ceiling price. The Frenchgovernment issued a letter of comfort, which was not of any comfort", arguedBhushan before the court.

Shourie, who briefly argued, informed the court that it hasbeen misled, and although the government has given all the documents regardingthe deal to CAG, "why can't they share them with the court?" heasked.

Shourie also shared a document published on the Ministry ofHome Affairs' website which mandates the government to share information ondefence deals. The AG argued that the document is old, and in accordance withIGA, which was signed in September 2016, the government has to oblige its termsregarding secrecy.

The AG also informed the court that the Rafale deal has cometo a fruition stage after many years, and if at all any delay is caused,developing a new Request for Proposal (RFP) and then floating the same; it willtake another 5 years.