Read statement issued by Yashwant Sinha, Arun shourie & myself on the disappointing and indeed shocking judgement of the Supreme Court on the Rafale deal. Apart from not dealing the issues raised by us, the judgement makes several grotesque factual errors –
Very disappointing Jt of the SC saying that there is no need for the court to order investigation into Rafale deal.Court says price seems OK on basis of govt’s sealed cover, which was not shown to us. Today Caravan has revealed that Modi himself increased price from 5.2-7.8B Euro.
SC also accepted govt claim that selection of Ambani as offset partner was done by Dassalt and the government has no role in it, despite the fact that defence procurement procedures and offset guidelines require that all offset contracts must be approved by the Defence Minister!
SC also accepted govt’s claim of procedure followed in Modi’s Rafale deal being OK, though the rules require AF to give requirement of planes & then DAC to approve them. Here, Modi himself ordered 36 aircraft in Ambanified deal though AF needed 126&DAC required TOT & make in India.
This isn’t the first time when the SC has failed us in ordering a probe in cases of high level corruption. In the Birla/Sahara case, where IT& CBI had recovered docs showing large payoffs to politicos which tallied with their books of accounts, SC had also refused to order a probe.
The judgement of SC in the Rafale case, apart from being based entirely on the govt’s claims,some of them made in a sealed cover without being shown to us,also does not deal with the issues raised by us&the facts mentioned by us in our complaint to the CBI or in our petition to SC.
The SC also takes note of the govt claim that Dassault had been seeking an agreement with Reliance since 2012(to suggest that Modi had nothing to do with Ambani’s selection)tho that Reliance was a Mukesh Ambani company, and offset contract was given to a new&bogus Anil Ambani Co!
The SC judgement on Rafale has some grotesque factual errors. It says that there is a CAG report on pricing of the Rafale aircraft which was placed before the PAC and is in the public domain. This is not on the record, never claimed to be so by the govt and factually incorrect.
The SC judgement also claims that the court interviewed Air Force officers and questioned them about the acquisition process and pricing details. This is also factually incorrect since the AF officers were asked only as to whether Rafale was a 3rd, 4th or 5th generation aircraft.