NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Wednesday reserved its order on a batch of petitions seeking a court-monitored probe into the procurement of 36 Rafale fighter jets. The four-hour hearing also saw a team of senior IAF officers arriving in court. The bench, comprising Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justices S K Kaul and K M Joseph, said there was no need to share the pricing details of the jets with the petitioners at this stage, and focused largely on the decision-making process and the choice of Anil Ambani firm Reliance Defence as the offset partner.
During the hearing, the bench said the main contract for the 36 Rafale jets cannot be separated from the offset contract and the vendor, Dassault Aviation, needs to furnish all details of the offset partner within three months of the main contract. “It may not be in the country’s interest if the offset contract is executed later because that may lead to delay in production by the offset partner,” it said.
On the Centre’s submission that it had no role in Dassault’s selection of the offset partner, Justice Joseph wondered how the nation’s interests would be protected if the offset manufacturer fails. Justice Joseph also wanted to know how the PM announced a new deal even before the Request for Proposal of the old agreement was withdrawn. As Attorney General K K Venugopal struggled to answer, CJI Gogoi told Justice Jospeh “your own note says process of withdrawal had begun in March 2015 and was concluded in June”.
Asked whether there was a sovereign guarantee in the inter-governmental agreement signed between India and France, the AG said that France had given a Letter of Comfort to the Indian government. A sovereign guarantee implies that the French government would be liable in case of any breach of contract, whereas a Letter of Comfort is a watered down version where the liability rests with the manufacturer.
Alok Khosla, Air Officer Commanding-in-Chief Eastern Air Command, deputy chief of air staff VR Chowdhuri and two other officers appeared in the court to answer their questions. The hearing also saw advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing on behalf of petitioners, flagging the issue of the Law Ministry’s objection over the issue of sovereign guarantee in the Rafale deal and also pointed out the rules of arbitration.
Court exchange
SC: We need to decide whether to bring the fact on pricing in public domain or not
Prashant Bhushan: It (price) was disclosed in Parliament twice... The govt is now saying what was stated in Parliament is the basic price. Govt is hiding behind the secrecy agreement
KK Venugopal: The price (revealed in Parliament) was not of loaded aircraft. Secrecy is on weapon and avionics. The Air Force feels if it is disclosed, our adversaries will take benefit. I decided not to peruse the documents myself as in a case of any leak, my office would be held responsible
SC: It may not be in the country’s interest if the offset contract is executed later because that may lead to delay in production
Venugopal: The Air Chief is complaining that there may be difficulty in defending ourselves against other countries... If we had the Rafale then (during Kargil war), we could have targeted intruders from 60 km awaySC: Kargil was in 1999... Rafale came in 2014
QUICK ONES
CJI Ranjan Gogoi: Is the base aircraft under
new deal same as the earlier deal?
KK Venugopal: Yes.
CJI: Was weaponry and equipment disclosed or in public domain under either the new or earlier deal?
Venugopal: Never.
CJI: Which is the latest induction into IAF?
Top IAF officer: Sukhoi 30
CJI: Are these and the Light Combat Aircraft fourth generation?
IAF officer: I would
say it’s 3.5.
CJI: The new proposed aircraft is of which generation?
Air Marshal: 5th generation because it has stealth technology
CJI: When did Mirage aircraft come in?
IAF officer: 1985
CJI: Between 1985 and today, zero aircraft, that’s all we wanted to know
CJI: The Air Marshal and Vice-Marshals can go back. It is a different war game here in court. You may go back to your own war rooms