Thread by @indialegalmedia

#SupremeCourt #RafaleDeal MANOHAR LAL SHARMA vs. NARENDRA DAMODARDAS MODI
 
W.P.(Crl.) No. 000225 - / 2018
 
Court 1, item 1
 
Before HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE, HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UDAY UMESH LALIT and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.M. JOSEPH

Facts: Letter Petition & Pil Matters : Writ Petitions (Criminal) and Writ Petitions filed as PIL pertaining to criminal investigations/prosecution.

The Supreme Court has agreed to list the petition filed by lawyer Manohar Lal Sharma seeking a stay on the India-France Rafale fighter jet deal.

Last Date: after we had passed the order, 2 more pils filed on the same issue. At the outset we observe none of the PIL raises question on suitability of equipment and its utility has been questioned. What has been questioned is bona fide of decision making and the price.

Pursuant to the earlier order asking for details, submitted to the court in sealed cover. At this stage we don’t find it appropriate to record any finding , we are of view the core information in d confidential report, further details dt should legitimately come in public domain

The court also appraised the details with regards to pricing, particularly the advantages. Necessary details to be shared and to be handed over to the parties before this court.

Reports revealing strategies can be withheld.  Prayer of Prashant Bhushan to imitate CBI enquiry not entertained today. 

List the matter on 14th

Today-
para 25 report filed by the respondent as directed reveals that there has been fraud while making the decision post May 2015.

Matter must be gone to 5 judges bench, ML Sharma

#RafaleDeal In Vineet Dhanda matter, counsel seeks time to file reply.

#SupremeCourt #RafaleDeal There is an atleast a difference of 1000 crore for each fighter jet, counsel in Sanjay Singh matter

#RafaleDeal Without cancelling the earlier deal wherein some jets were supposed to be procured in ready to fly condition and remaining 108 planes were supposed to be made in India in collaboration with HUL, the government made a subsequent deal, counsel in Sanjay Singh matter

#SupremeCourt #RafaleDeal How can the government say that the subsequent deal was better than the prior deal.

#RafaleDeal Intergovernmental clause should have been invoked to secure the earlier deal.

We want some time to file our reply as we received the report on Monday, counsel while concluding

#RafaleScam Prashant Bhushan while pointing out a new subsequent issue which has arose, d government is saying they short circuited d procedure to procure d jets.

#RafaleScam #SupremeCourt On d contrary, tender can be avoided in only 3 conditions, those 3 conditions were not satisfied in the present case, submits Bhushan

#Rafale #SupremeCourt Categorisation committee suggested that the jets must only be procured from outside India only if such a technology is not available in India, Bhushan.

#RafaleScam #SupremeCourt The bid included the condition that for 108 planes, know how must come along with it in order to utilise the information to make such planes in India, Bhushan further submits.

#RafaleScam A joint statement made in bolt of blue, that all plans will be procured in fly away condition and no transfer of technology will take place, Bhushan

#RafaleScam #SupremeCourt The deal has been changed because prime minister wanted to accommodate Ambani, Prashant Bhushan

#RafaleScam #SupremeCourt
Even the defence minister was not aware about the change of deal, Bhushan.

#RafaleScam #SupremeCourt
Although Dassault said in its statement that 95% of deal has been worked upon, we are looking forward to work with HAL, the government subsequently changed the deal.

#RafaleScam #SupremeCourt
Keeping everything aside who took the decision to reduce the procurement number from 126 to 36, only categorisation committee is authorised to take that decision. How does the prime minister do that, asks Bhushan

#RafaleDeal The reply was drafted overnight. Don’t be in a hurry Mr. Bhushan, CJI while pointing out a mistake in the pleadings regarding provision 8.2.

#RafaleScam #SupremeCourt Provision 8.6 stands as it is, it wasn’t amended, accordingly the defence minister must have been informed, Bhushan.

#RafaleScam While talking on the issue of disclosure of price, Bhushan submits that the government is hiding behind secrecy agreement

#RafaleScam Attorney General interrupted Bhushan while he started reading secrecy agreement, AG opposes on the ground that secrecy agreement cannot be cited in any court.

#SupremeCourt #RafaleDeal How can price be a threat to national security, price cannot be classified in the secrecy agreement, submits Bhushan

#RafaleDeal #SupremeCourt
We are giving you full hearing, exercise the liberty carefully. Say only that much what is required, CJI says to P. Bhushan

#RafaleScam Pricing comes under the ambit of Right to information, the government cannot deny while hiding behind the secrecy agreement, Bhushan.

#RafaleScam Bhushan while giving reasons to approach this court submits, We approached CBI via complaint disclosing all the offences, as gratification is not only for self gain, it is also also a gratification if it is directed towards someone else.

#Rafale #SupremeCourt We are only struck by amended section 17A of POC Act, in light of the Bhushan appraised the court dt he has also challenged 17A POC act through a different petition which is pending. 17A bars the CBI to investigate without prior approval from the government.

#RafaleScam Why was Ambani chosen? Just because he had land? Why Reliance?, Bhushan

#RafaleScam #SupremeCourt Ambani or reliance has Zero experience in the field of defence, Bhushan states in his complaint.

#RafaleScam #SupremeCourt FIR must be lodged and enquiry must be conducted in accordance with Lalita kumari (Judgment on lodging of FIR), Submits P. Bhushan.

#SupremeCourt #RafaleDeal Arun Shourie argues in person..

#RafaleDeal While talking on the issue of pricing, Shourie submits it’s the public money. It must not be covered under secrecy agreement.

#RafaleDeal The secrecy agreement which is infact enumerated in a book of 2008 regarding external affairs with government’s prior approval, in that light the secrecy agreement must not be looked at so secretly.

#RafaleScam Everything was moving very smoothly until a statement was made in France in April 2015 about the new deal, Shourie. Everybody was convinced about the deal regarding 126 fighter jets prior to that statement

#SupremeCourt HAL in its statement which is printed in Hindustan times asserts that HAL was competent to fulfil the earlier deal, Arun Shourie while concluding his submissions

#SupremeCourt We are dealing with the requirements of Air Force we want someone from the Indian Air Force to be present and not from the ministry, CJI to Attorney General who just began his submissions
#RafaleScam

#SupremeCourt The secrecy is regarding the weaponery, 670 is the figure for the raw aircraft without any equipment. We cannot disclose the price for loaded aircraft, as it may leak the information regarding the weaponery, Attorney General
#RafaleScam

#SupremeCourt Is RFP required in the case of intergovernmental agreement? Asked CJI to Attorney General who answered the query in negative after taking instruction from the official. #Rafale

#SupremeCourt Proceedings to continue after lunch.
#Rafale

*HAL

#RafaleDeal Air Marshal present in court to answer the court’s queries

HAL is still in continuation of producing Sukoy 30 in India as an existing fleet of combat, Air Marshal while answering the bench

Is it 3rd generation or 4th generation? CJI
I’ll personally call it 3.5 generation, marshal replied

While RFP was still pending and wasn’t withdrawn, how can the prime minister make a statement, asked Justice Joseph

#SupremeCourt #Rafale To this query CJI came to aid and guided AG that the answer is in para 22

#SupremeCourt #Rafale After you argue on the aspect of offset clause, we want you to answer the arguments advanced by Bhushan regarding 3 preconditions to invoke intergovernmental clause. CJI to Attorney General

#SupremeCourt #Rafale Offset policy was changed in 2015 to favour the vendor is the allegation levied by the petitioner.

#SupremeCourt #Rafale The offset partner must be selected by the vendor, Attorney General

#SupremeCourt Offset contract runs concurrently along with the main contract which is valid till 2022, official from the defence ministry
#RafaleDeal

#SupremeCourt Additional secretary defence

France, Egypt and Qatar are the 3 countries already using Rafael

#RafaleDeal #SupremeCourt While referring to the usual conduct in courtrooms CJI commented, Air Marshals and officials shall return back to their own war zone as Attorney General concluded his submissions.

#Rafale #SupremeCourt The whole package was very clear earlier and subsequent amendment with retrospective effect was brought in malafidely, rebuts Bhushan

#SupremeCourt #Rafale Intergovernmental agreements can be resorted to in emergency situations, it cannot be used to bypass the process of tender and bids, rebuts Bhushan

#Rafale Sr. Counsel Hegde while explaining the initial figure of 126 fighter jets submits, each squadron consists of 7 planes and 18 squadrons were planned to be maintained.

#Rafale #SupremeCourt No procedure was followed in order to fulfil the requirement, Hegde

#Rafale #SupremeCourt Ratifying authorities were not eligible to stop the entire process, submits Hegde

#Rafale #SupremeCourt #Breaking
Order reserved in Rafael matter