After nearly three plus decades, Govt has initiated steps to modernize IAF's Combat Capacities. See how the Apex Court Judges are poking their nose in areas unfamiliar to them. 1/n
given below a brief resume of the Court Room Exchanges between Judges on one side and AG plus IAF Officers from the Government's side. Readers may draw their own conclusions. 2/n
the Supreme Court bench comprising Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justices S K Kaul and K M Joseph heard the petitions seeking a court-monitored investigation into the Rafale Defence deal. 3/n
The AG submitted that the matter was not fit for judicial review as defence deals are handled by experts in the sector.

AG also advanced that pricing details can be revealed only with the concurrence of French government. 4/n
The CJI also asked if the pricing details of the earlier deal were brought in public domain. An emphatic ‘No’ was the AG’s answer.

Justice K M Joseph probed the AG regarding the Request For Proposal of the new deal. 5/n
The AG clarified that the new deal did not require an RFP as it was based on an Inter Governmental Agreement.

Justice Joseph also asked whether the base aircraft of previous deal and new deal were the same. The Attorney General answered in the affirmative. 6/n
In the course of Rafale hearing which is in the Supreme Court, AG K. K. Venugopal advanced that “This is a matter for experts &not 1 where judicial review may be undertaken based on media reports &other documents which is not clear how they are in the (petitioners’) possession”.
“The big question Your Lordships should ask is whether the court is competent to review (the deal to acquire 36 Rafale fighter jets) on the basis of what has been filed”, pressed the AG. 6/n.
“With all due respect, Your Lordships asked for the procedure (followed in the procurement) to be filed. The government of India did so. 7/n
You asked us to give extracts of it, which can be brought into the public domain, to the petitioners, and to share the pricing details with the court in a sealed cover. We have done so, continued the AG. 8/n
“The agreements between the government of India and the government of France, of which one is the Inter Governmental Agreement, regard certain information as classified which can be disclosed only with the permission of the government of France. 9/n
Even Parliament has not been given complete cost.
Sanjay Singh’s (AAP MLA) petition- the cost of the aircraft has been stated as being Rs. 670 crores, which is exclusive of associate equipment, maintenance support, services, etc.This is not the cost of the loaded aircraft. 10/n
The secrecy is sought to be maintained as to the weaponry and the avionics, and not for the aircraft, so as to avert the risk of our adversaries taking advantage of this information. The IAF (Indian Air Force) Air Marshal has given a letter concurring on this point. 11/n
If we are to disclose the pricing of the whole, loader aircraft, the consent of the government of France is needed….such information is protected against disclosure even under the RTI Act….”, was the case of the top law officer. 12/n
“because of the respect for Supreme Court, we will make available details of price &the break-up as 2weaponry &avionics, &even the advantages of the jet”, conceded the AG.

However, he voiced concerns over possibility of leakage from his office of such sensitive information.13/n
Any discussion as to pricing will happen only if we allow these stats to come into public domain”, assured Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi. 24/n
*14/n
On why the earlier deal of procuring 126 fighter jets, of which 18 would be in fly-away condition and 108 would be manufactured in India by HAL on the basis of Technology Transfer was scrapped. 15/n
Mr. Venugopal contended that there could be “No understanding with HAL in respect of the man hours required for manufacture, which were 2.7 times higher than Dassault and would have resulted in a huge delay”. 16/n
“The contractual obligations and the issue regarding manufacture in India could not resolved between 2012 and 2015….there could not be allowed to be any danger of accident and the jets and The equipment was to be in perfect condition and of perfect efficacy…17/n
the difference in the price came on account of the inflation and the change in the euro-rupee exchange rate in this time gap”, explained the AG.

“Our adversaries were upgrading their existing aircraft and acquiring more advanced ones. 18/n
They had inducted more than than 400 fighter jets as against our 126.These were Fourth generation aircraft.

This enhancing by the adversaries of their combat strength made the situation asymmetrical and critical. 19/n
And hence, the process for withdrawal of the earlier RPF was initiated in March, 2015, with the Indo-french joint statement being issued on April 10, 2015, for the supply of 36 Rafale jets ‘as quickly as possible’….”, he continued....20/n
There was a long delay from 2007 to 2015 and we were still in the process of finalising, when it was decided that the government would withdraw the deal for 126 aircraft with only 18 in flyaway condition and instead procure 36 in the flyaway condition. 21/n
These 36 were compatible with quality requirements of the earlier MMRC &of the same configuration.
operational requirement of the IAF, acceptance of necessity, approval by the requisite financial authority, commercial negotiations-all steps were fulfilled. 22/n
It was brought to the notice of the DAC (Defence Acquisition Council)”, he asserted.

“After the joint statement, we followed the 2013 Defence Procurement Procedure. The earlier procedure, in respect of the RPF issued in 2007, was deemed to be valid….”, he stated. 23/n
So there was no RPF for these 36 jets?”, inquired Justice K. M. Joseph.

“Is the RPF required for the intergovernmental agreement Or only for competitive deals?”, asked the Chief Justice. 24/n
No, the intergovernmental agreement does not need the RPF. However, the Rafale deal was sent to all committees and it was okay-ed….”, responded the AG. 25/n
Are these new aircraft the same as those 126? Otherwise, the procedure (of procurement) has to be repeated”, reflected Justice Joseph.

“is the base aircraft same as earlier”, the Chief Justice sought to know.

“Yes, it is the same”, replied the AG. 26/n
Under the earlier procurement of 2007, did you at any time disclose the machinery and the weapons to be loaded which you are now refraining from sharing?”, asked Chief Justice Gogoi.

“No, it was never officially disclosed even under the old law”, said the AG. 27/n
We take it that The weaponry and the equipment have never been in public domain”, noted the Chief Justice.

“Are the deliverables for both sets of aircraft the same?”, quizzed Justice Joseph. 28/n
The additional secretary of the defence ministry says there have been improvements in the deliverables because of the time gap”, stated Mr. Venugopal. 29/n
The Chief Justice asked if anyone from the IAF was present in court saying that the court wished to quiz an officer of the IAF as to the requirements of the Air Force. AG agreed to bring IAF Officer to the Supreme Court in the afternoon. 30/n
Accordingly, the Air Marshall &Air Vice Marshall along with few other Officers of IAF were present in Court in the post lunch session.
hearing also witnessed the Court interacting with the Air Marshal of the Indian Air Force &Additional Chief Secretary of MoD . 31/n
The CJI interacted with the Air Marshall, asking details about the latest induction in IAF and latest domestic production made by the Indian Air Force. 32/n
The Air Marshall stated that the latest induction was Sukhoi 30 and latest model manufactured was third generation MIG. The fighters of the force belonged to third and fourth generation. 33/n
India is in need of fifth generation aircraft with stealth technology and accordingly Rafale was zeroed in, the Air Marshall clarified. 34/n
Regarding the query on Offset Partner, the Defence Secretary replied that it was for Government 2accept the choice of offset partner at later stage.

Original Equipment Manufacturer runs the risk of penalties if the offset partner is found to be invalid, said the Secretary. 35/n
Court was also informed that apart from India and France, Qatar &Egypt have entered into agreements with Dassault for procurement of Rafale.

In post lunch session, AG admitted in the Court that the there was no sovereign guarantee from the French government for the deal. 36/n
However, AG added that France has issued a ‘letter of comfort’ 4the deal with Dassault Aviation for procurement of 36 Rafale aircraft.
AG concluded arguments by stating that the matter was highly sensitive concerning security of the Country. After this SC reserved its order. n/n
Source WA. 🙏 🙏
Missing some Tweet in this thread?
You can try to force a refresh.

Like this thread? Get email updates or save it to PDF!

Subscribe to Abhi Athavale🇮🇳🇮🇳
Profile picture

Get real-time email alerts when new unrolls are available from this author!

This content may be removed anytime!

Twitter may remove this content at anytime, convert it as a PDF, save and print for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video

1) Follow Thread Reader App on Twitter so you can easily mention us!

2) Go to a Twitter thread (series of Tweets by the same owner) and mention us with a keyword "unroll" @threadreaderapp unroll

You can practice here first or read more on our help page!

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just three indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member and get exclusive features!

Premium member ($30.00/year)

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!