New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday rejected the review petitions against its verdict in the Rafale deal on grounds that they lacked merit, reiterating its clean chit to the BJP government in the fighter jet agreement with French firm Dassault Aviation.
The apex court also dismissed the contention that there was need to register an FIR in connection with the Rs 58,000 crore deal.
The pleas had sought re-examination of the apex court's 14 December , 2018 decision that there was no occasion to doubt the decision-making process in the procurement of 36 Rafale fighter jets.
"We find the review petitions are without any merit," a bench involving Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justices S K Kaul and K M Joseph said.
The dismissal of review petitions is tantamount to the apex court giving a second clean chit to the Modi government.
Reading out the judgement, Justice Kaul said the judges had arrived the conclusion that it is not appropriate to order a roving inquiry into the claims
Maintaining that the review petitions have sought a registration of an FIR in connection with Rafale deal, the bench said, "We do not consider it to be a fair submission".
"We do not find it appropriate to consider passing order for registration of FIR," the bench said.
Justice Joseph, who wrote a separate judgement, said he agreed with the primary verdict written by Justice Kaul subject to certain aspects on which he has given his own reasons.
In December last year, the apex court had rejected the petitions seeking an investigation into alleged irregularities in the deal.
On 10 May, the apex court reserved its decision on the pleas, including one filed by former Union ministers Yashwant Sinha, Arun Shourie and activist lawyer Prashant Bhushan, seeking a reconsideration of its findings.
The review petitions were filed by the lawyer Vineet Dhandha and Aam Aadmi Party lawmaker Sanjay Singh.
While reserving the judgement on the review petitions, the apex court asked the Centre searching questions on its deal with France to purchase thirty six Rafale fighter jets on issues like "waiver of sovereign guarantee" and the absence of technology transfer clause in the inter-governmental agreement (IGA).
The bench referred to an previous judgement which said an FIR is a must when information revealed commission of cognizable offence.
Attorney General K K Venugopal had told the bench that "there must be a prima facie case, otherwise they (agencies) cannot proceed. The data must disclose commission of cognizable offence".
Justice Joseph had referred to the previous deal and asked the Centre why the IGA on Rafale with the French administration does not have the clause of transfer of technology.
"The court cannot decide such technical aspects," Venugopal said accordingly.
On the court's inquiry of waiver of sovereign guarantee by France in the IGA and its replacement with a letter of comfort, Venugopal said it is not an "unprecedented practice".
"It is a issue of national security. No other court in the world will examine a defence deal on these kinds of arguments," he said.
Bhushan, arguing his own case, had presented that the December 2018 judgement did not deal with the prayer seeking a probe into the deal and decided the petition on the premise that it is seeking cancellation of IGA.
He contended that the Centre misled the court by alluding to a non-existent CAG report in November 2018 hearing when it is on record that the report came later in February this year.
Bhushan also alleged suppression of material facts from the court by the Centre and said as many 8 critical clauses of the standard defence procurement procedure were dropped in the deal in the meeting of Cabinet Committee on Security in Sept 2016.
One condition dealt with the aspect that the government can abandon the deal if the information of any involvement of middleman comes to the light, he said.
Venugopal had vehemently opposed the submissions and sought dismissals of review petitions, saying the basic grounds of these pleas were the same as in the main case.
The government is under obligation to put defence material under cover, he said, adding that "when the safety of the country is involved, you do not view it as a contract to build a highway or a dam".
