English हिन्दी
Connect with us

India News

Rafale deal: SC reserves its order on petitions challenging the deal and seeking court-monitored probe

Published

on

Rafale deal controversy

The Supreme Court today (Wednesday, November 14) reserved its judgment on pleas challenging the deal for procurement of 36 Rafale fighter jets from France and seeking a court-monitored probe into the matter.

A three-judge bench, headed by Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi and comprising Justices UU Lalit and KM Joseph, heard the arguments two days after the government submitted details on the decision-making process to finalise the Rafale fighter jet deal with France and the details of pricing in a sealed cover exclusively to the judges. A redacted version of decision making process was shared with petitioners.

The petitioners in the case include advocate Manohar Lal Sharma, lawyer Vineet Dhanda, AAP MP Sanjay Singh and former Union ministers Yashwant Sinha, Arun Shourie and activist lawyer Prashant Bhushan.

The petitioners wanted the Attorney-General, representing the Centre, to reply why a joint press statement was issued by Prime Minister along with French President Francois Hollande in April 2015, well over a year before the Cabinet Committee on Security finally approved the 36 jets’ deal signed in Sep 2016.

On the price of the Rafale aircraft, they said the government was hiding behind the secrecy clause of the agreement.

Arun Shourie, who was also present, said, “All that is spoken of as add on’s to the jets had figured in the original Request for Proposal,” adding, “Government is putting out all kinds of reports through ‘friendly media’.”

He argued that pricing was about public money and it must not be covered under secrecy agreement.

Attorney General KK Venugopal contended that “secrecy agreement has to be secret”. He argued that if the price is made public, adversaries would be able to relate it to the equipment. The AG said the secrecy is not about the price but the weaponry and avionics and if price is made public, adversaries would be able to relate it to the equipment.

The AG further asked if the court was competent to judicially review the Rafale deal, adding that the “matter is for experts to decide on, not the court”.

The bench then asked for the assistance of an Air Force officer on the issue. Deputy Chief of Air staff, Air Marshal VR Chaudhari and two other officers from Indian Air Force appeared in the Supreme Court to assist it on the issue of the procurement of 36 Rafale fighter jets from France.

They told the court that Sukhoi 30s were the latest to be inducted which is a third generation aircraft and added that the Indian Air Force does not have fourth or fifth generation aircraft in its fleet. The top court asked if there has been no induction of aircraft since 1985, the officers said “no”.

The government’s contention that procedure was followed was challenged, arguing that the Rafale deal qualified none of the three conditions laid down by the Defence Procurement Procedure (DPP).

It was contrary to the procedure laid down as the choice was not disclosed to the Cabinet, Defence Acquisition Council nor the Defence Minister. They argued that the government “short-circuited” the acquisition process, as it took the Inter-Government Agreement route to avoid giving tender.

Alleging gross violation of procedure in decision making process in the deal, Bhushan asked: “Who took the decision for 36 jets? On what basis did the PM announce the deal for 36 jets? He had no authority. How was 126 jets reduced to 36 jets?”

Asserting that not a single aircraft was delivered till now even after three-and-a-half years, he told the Supreme Court bench that if the 126 aircraft deal was still on, “at least 18 jets would have been delivered by April 2019”.

The government note in the Supreme Court on the Rafale deal said the prolonged impasse over the 126-aircraft deal had caused an “urgent need” to acquire 36 Rafale jets or two squadrons in a fly-away condition.

The documents provided by the government Monday claimed that the delay in concluding the Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft (MMRCA) deal, during the UPA rule, gave India’s adversaries time to upgrade and equip their fighter fleets with advanced weaponry.

“During this long period of inconclusive 126 MMRCA process, our adversaries inducted modern aircraft and upgraded their older versions. They acquired better capability air-to-air missiles and inducted their indigenous fighters in large numbers. Further, they modernised and inducted aircraft with an advanced weapon and radar capabilities,” the government had said.

When asked by the CJI about the argument of the petitioner that France had not given a sovereign guarantee to the deal, the attorney general said there was “letter of comfort” from the French President.

The petitioners also questioned Reliance as the choice of offset partner, a company with no experience in manufacturing defence aircraft. Regarding the contentious offset details of the Rafale deal, Justice Joseph asked the additional defence secretary as to how the country’s interests would be protected if the offset partner did not carry out production.

“What was the need to amend offset guidelines with retrospective effect?” Joseph asked. The official said that it was for the government to accept the choice made by the Original Equipment Manufacturer of the offset partner. Venugopal said that Dassault had not yet submitted details of offset partner to government.

India News

Jammu and Kashmir: CRPF vans damaged, stones hurled amid protests against Vaishno Devi ropeway project

The residents have been complaining that the project would negatively impact the environment and their livelihoods.

Published

on

Jammu and Kashmir: CRPF vans damaged, stones hurled amid protests against Vaishno Devi ropeway project

Massive violence broke out in Jammu and Kashmir’s Katra after the protestors pelted stones and clashed with the security forces during their protests against the proposed ropeway project along the trek route to the holy shrine of Vaishno Devi atop Trikuta hills. 

Reports said that the protestors hurled stones at the security personnel and damaged a CRPF vehicle. Paramvir Singh, Reasi SSP told media that the protest was going on peacefully for the past three days but on Monday some protesters pelted stones at the security forces. 

In Jammu and Kashmir’s Katra, the shopkeepers and labourers on Sunday took out a protest rally on the third day of their strike and held a sit-in outside the office of the subdivisional magistrate and Shalimar Park in Katra, the base camp for pilgrims visiting the shrine. 

A member of the joint committee of shopkeepers and pony and palanquin owners had said that the 72-hour strike has been extended by another 24 hours, adding that they will meet again and announce our future course of action. Notably, the three-day strike called by them began on Friday. 

Reports stated that while the businesses located at the base camp of Katra remained operational, shops lining the pilgrimage route from Ban Ganga to Charan Paduka observed closures. Nonetheless, the suspension of pony and palanquin services is causing hardships for the pilgrims, especially the elderly and differently-abled, to continue their sacred journey.

The residents have been complaining that the project would negatively impact the environment and their livelihoods. They asserted that the ropeway project would render them jobless, and also accused the authorities of pushing through the development without adequate consultation.

Meanwhile, Jammu and Kashmir Lieutenant Governor Manoj Sinha has assured the protestors of their employment. He mentioned that the committee headed by the Divisional Commissioner has been deliberating on the ropeway project and the rehabilitation of the locals. Furthermore, he also emphasised that the genuine concerns of the locals would be considered while the development of the region would not be ignored.

The Shri Mata Vaishno Devi Shrine Board (SMVDSB) had announced implementation of the long-awaited ropeway project to facilitate a safer and faster journey for the pilgrims. As per the project details, the ropeway will be developed with a cost of Rs 250 crore between Tarakote Marg to Sanji Chhat along the 12-kilometre track.

Continue Reading

India News

Delhi Pollution: GRAP IV restrictions to continue in national capital, says Supreme Court

The court also pulled up the Delhi Police over no checkpoints at the borders of the city for checking the pollution measures and said that it was a serious lapse.

Published

on

Delhi Pollution: GRAP IV restrictions to continue in national capital, says Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Monday refused to relax GRAP IV measures in Delhi and ordered the CAQM to consider relaxing norms for students. The apex court observed that several students cannot avail midday meals, online classes and cannot access air purifiers.

The court also pulled up the Delhi Police over no checkpoints at the borders of the city for checking the pollution measures and said that it was a serious lapse. A bench headed by Justice AS Oka stated that they would consider prosecution of the Delhi Police Commissioner under the Commission for Air Quality Management (CAQM) Act for deploying police personnel at only 23 checkpoints, when Stage 4 of the GRAP was implemented.

Earlier, the court has also appointed 13 members from the court as commissioners to check whether the GRAP IV measures are being implemented or not. On Monday, the commissioners submitted their report to the court.

Subsequently, the court told the Delhi government that there were no checkposts at borders of the city and that the ban on trucks entering into the capital was not being followed properly.

The top court bench said that they were informed that no police or government personnel were present at the border checkpoints, and they were only manned by toll collection staff of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. Mentioning that they will direct prosecution against all officials, the court questioned why the police were not directed to take action under Stage IV of the GRAP.

Responding, Advocate Shadan Farasat representing the Delhi government said that the CAQM had issued directions. Consecutively, the court asked him to show what written instructions were given by the state and the central government to the police on November 18. To this, Advocate Farasat said that directions were issued to post police personnel at 23 checkpoints where trucks could enter the city.

The court continued that this was negligence, adding that it will direct CAQM to prosecute the Delhi Police Commissioner.

Continue Reading

India News

Maharashtra elections: Ajit Pawar criticises Sharad Pawar’s decision to field Yugender Pawar against him

Ajit Pawar said that Yugendra is a business person, and he had no connection with politics.

Published

on

Maharashtra elections: Ajit Pawar criticises Sharad Pawar’s decision to field Yugender Pawar against him

After the Maharashtra Assembly Elections results, NCP leader Ajit Pawar criticized NCP faction led by Sharad Pawar for its decision to field his nephew Yugender Pawar against him in the family bastion of Baramati. Ajit Pawar also mentioned that his decision to field wife Sunetra Pawar against his sister Supriya Sule in the Lok Sabha election was a mistake. 

Sharad Pawar led NCP had fielded Yugender Pawar, son of Ajit Pawar’s elder brother Shrinivas Anantrao Pawar, in the Baramati Assembly segment. The constituency was represented by Sharad Pawar for over two decades, followed by Ajit Pawar for over three. In this assembly election, 33-year-old Yugendra Pawar was backed by Sharad Pawar and four-time Baramati MP Supriya Sule. However, Yugender Pawar lost out against his formidable uncle by a margin of over 1 lakh votes.

While addressing the media, Ajit Pawar said that Yugendra is a business person, and he had no connection with politics. He added that there was no reason to field his own nephew against him in the elections.

Earlier in the Lok Sabha elections 2024, Ajit Pawar had fielded his wife Sunetra Pawar against his cousin and Sharad Pawar’s daughter Supriya Sule, who won the contest by a 1.5 lakh votes margin. Later, Ajit Pawar admitted that it was a mistake.

Sharad Pawar had defended the decision to field Yugendra Pawar, mentioning that someone had to contest the polls. He had also said there was no comparison between Ajit Pawar and Yugendra Pawar. 

Notably, a 2023 rebellion led by Ajit Pawar against his uncle split the NCP founded by Sharad Pawar. Since then, the senior Pawar has been fighting to win his party’s name and symbol back. 

Previously In the Lok Sabha election, the veteran had trumped his nephew, with his faction winning 8 seats compared to Ajit Pawar’s score of 1. However this time, the tables turned as NCP (Sharad Pawar) scored 10, but Ajit Pawar’s party won 41.

Continue Reading

Trending

© Copyright 2022 APNLIVE.com