, 21 tweets, 8 min read Read on Twitter
Ok, since there is an attemt to repeat lies over and over, putting out a #Thread on Attorney General KK Venugopal's submissions in #Rafale case before Supreme Court on March 6.
When Prashant Bhushan sought to rely upon the documents (stolen?) in question, Attorney General KK Venugopal objected saying those note files were stolen from Defence Ministry and probe into that is underway.
This would be an offence under the Official Secrets Act. Action might be taken against two newspapers which published. Action is also warranted against counsel. These are matters which involve the very security of the State, AG KK Venugopal. #Rafale
The strategy is to put out a news item the day before the hearing so as to influence the hearing. Today also Hindu has published something. This by itself is contempt of court, Attorney General KK Venugopal. #RafaleRecap #SupremeCourt
I am suggesting that the newspaper is guilty under IPC for theft and under the Official Secrets Act for accessing privileged documents. Review petition and perjury petition are liable to be dismissed in limine on this ground alone, AG KK Venugopal. #RafaleRecap #SupremeCourt
Bench rises for lunch at 2 pm. When Bench reassembles at 2 pm Prashant Bhushan submitted that Statement by AG that action will be taken against petitioners who are trying to bring correct facts on record is an attempt to intimidate petitioners and amounts to criminal contempt
These documents were never intended to be in public domain, Attorney General KK Venugopal responded. #Rafale #SupremeCourt
Justice KM Joseph proceeded to quiz AG Venugopal. “Can relevant evidence be cut out saying it is illegally obtained? Can’t stolen evidence be looked into if it is relevant?“, asked Justice KM Joseph. #Rafale #SupremeCourt
This question leads to an intense exchange between Justice KM Joseph and KK Venugopal.
Venugopal says that the petitioner has to disclose the source of the document and that is threshold to be crossed if the document is to be admitted in court. #Rafale #SupremeCourt
“They have come with a document which is stolen. Your Lordships might have your view on it (admissibility of such a document) but I have a different view”, AG KK Venugopal. #Rafale #SupremeCourt
The petitioner has not crossed the threshold required by disclosing the source of the document. Where did he get it from in the Defence Ministry? Venugopal proceeded to ask. #Rafale #SupremeCourt
The entire petition is being based on a criminal act, this petition is liable to be dismissed. Defence is one of the most sensitive matters for the State involving the safety of each of us, AG KK Venugopal submitted. #Rafale #SupremeCourt
He also did not stop at that and asked the Court whether it will now start giving directions to go to War or sue for peace. #Rafale
CJI Ranjan Gogoi who was largely silent when AG Venugopal was arguing now intervened and asked,

“An accused is having difficulty in proving his innocence. He steals a document and shows it to judge. The document clearly shows he is innocent. Should judge not admit the document?”
He has to disclose the source of the document. The submission is, once the document is a subject matter of criminality, in my opinion, the court should not look into it, AG KK Venugopal said sticking to his stand. #Rafale #SupremeCourt
If your submission is that petitioners have not come bona fide, then that’s different. But can you say that the document is completely not touchable, CJI Ranjan Gogoi to AG KK Venugopal.
The whole transaction is being discussed day after day. This is more of a political matter, AG KK Venugopal. #RafaleRecap #SupremeCourt
In this limited area concerning defence of frontiers, would it not be appropriate for Your Lordships to exercise restraint? This is a matter by which opposition is trying to destabilise the government, AG KK Venugopal said before concluding his arguments.
So in a nutshell, Attorney General KK Venugopal repeatedly told in Supreme Court on March 6 that the documents in question were "stolen" from Defence Ministry.
It was his case that such stoeln documents are not admissible in court unless the petitioner reveals the source of such documents.

Hence, he sought dismissal of the review petitions in limine. #RafaleRecap #SupremeCourt
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 Murali Krishnan
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!

Follow Us on Twitter!

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 ($3.00/month or $30.00/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

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!