English हिन्दी
Connect with us

Latest News

Rafale deal: Modi govt says review petition based on media reports, opposes release of documents

Published

on

Rafale deal: Modi govt says review petition based on media reports, opposes release of documents

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]Ahead of the matter coming up for hearing in the Supreme Court on Monday, May 6, the Narendra Modi government, in its reply to the plea seeking review of its December 14 judgment rejecting demand for probe in Rafale deal, said the petitioners are trying to link unrelated issues and create controversies on the basis of certain media reports.

While arguing against a review based on media reports, however, the government also questioned the Supreme Court’s decision of dismissing Centre’s preliminary objections against the admissibility of the documents relied upon by the petitioners in the review petition.

The reply, filed today (Saturday, May 4) said that the well-reasoned order of December 14, 2018, in which the apex court gave a clean chit to the government, could not be relooked merely on the basis of some stolen documents revealing incomplete file notings.

At the same time, though, the government also raised questions against the Court’s decision of dismissing Centre’s preliminary objections against the admissibility of the documents relied upon by the petitioners in the Review Petition.

“The judgment of the Court dtd 10th April 2019 would imply that any document marked Secret obtained by whatever means and placed in public domain can be used without attracting any penal action.

… This could have implications in the financial sector also if say budget proposals are published before they are presented in Parliament. Such disclosures of Secret Government information will have grave repercussions on the very existence of the Indian State.”

It said the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) did “monitor” the progress of the Rafale fighter aircraft purchase deal, but this did not translate to conducting “parallel negotiations” with the French side.

“The monitoring of the progress by PMO of this Government to Government process cannot be construed as interference or parallel negotiations,” the 13-page reply filed by the government said.

Everything was transparent, it claimed, as then Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar himself noted that “it appears that PMO and French President’s office are monitoring the progress of the issues which was an outcome of the summit meeting”.

A series of reports by The Hindu said that the PMO was conducting “parallel negotiations” with the French for the off-the-shelf purchase of 36 Rafale jets manufactured by Dassault Aviation even as the Indian Negotiation Team (INT) was having detailed talks with its French counterpart.

The affidavit, filed by the Ministry of Defence, said the petitioners, who include former Union ministers Yashwant Sinha and Arun Shourie, were “attempting to bring out internal processing of this Government-to-Government procurement and trying to present a selective and incomplete picture of the same”.

The affidavit said, “The decisions by the Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS), the highest decision making body in the Government on defence matters and also by Defence Acquisition Council (DAC), the highest decision making body in Ministry of Defence have been made keeping in view all the facts of the case and the critical operational necessity of Indian Air Force.”

The Defence Ministry said the “actions of the petitioners [were] tantamount to questioning the sovereign decision concerning national security and defence”.

The petitioners were trying to link unrelated issues and create controversies on the basis of certain media reports. There was no relation whatsoever between the French government giving concessions to a subsidiary of an Anil Ambani company and the Rafale deal, it said.

“The issue reported in the media relates to the decision of a sovereign Government giving certain concessions to the subsidiary of an Indian private entity in a sector unrelated to Defence. It is far-fetched and a figment of imagination to link the decision of the French Government in this case to the procurement of 36 Rafale Aircraft,” the government said.

The Centre reiterated that it had no role in selection of the Indian offset partner (IOP), which is a commercial decision of the OEM (original equipment manufacturer).

The government quoted from the court’s December 14 judgment in the Rafale case, in which it found no “substantial material on record to show that this [is] a case of commercial favouritism to any party by the Indian Government, as the option to choose the IOP does not rest with the Indian Government”.

The government claimed, “Therefore, the contention of the petitioners that the issue of IOP are matters of fact and requires investigation is nothing but an attempt to get a fishing or roving enquiry ordered without even pleading a prima facie case.”

All files, notings, letters, etc., related to the procurement, including the full pricing details, have been made available to the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG), who had given a report concluding that the price of 36 Rafales was 2.86% lower than the Audit’s aligned price, apart from additional benefits that would accrue because of change from firm and fixed pricing to non-firm price, it said.

The affidavit explained that the CAG, a constitutional body, after examining extensively the process of procurement of 126 MMRCA, had clearly stated in its audit report that in the case of 126 MMRCA, the procurement that started in 2000 had made no progress even after 15 years had lapsed and, in fact, failed on the two-fold issue of calculating the manpower costs of producing the aircraft in India and non-guarantee of aircraft by M/s Dassault Aviation, the OEM, for aircraft to be licence-manufactured by M/s HAL in India.

The government alleged that the petitioners had made a false allegation that Rajeev Verma, Joint Secretary & Acquisition Manager (Air), who was one of the three officers who had highlighted the issues of concern, had proceeded on leave because of this.

“In fact, Shri Rajeev Verma signed the Note for the Cabinet in the instant case. At the time of the signing of the contract, Shri Rajeev Verma had proceeded on official training abroad of Department of Personnel & Training, for which he had applied and the training was approved several months earlier,” it said.

In the garb of a review, the petitioners were trying to reopen the whole matter, it added.

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]

Entertainment

Kapil Sharma warned by MNS for referring to Mumbai as Bombay on Netflix show

Published

on

Bollywood comedian Kapil Sharma has come under the radar of the Maharashtra Navnirman Sena (MNS) after the use of the term Bombay instead of Mumbai on his Netflix show The Great Indian Kapil Show. MNS spokesperson Ameya Khopkar issued a warning, stating that the usage of the city’s former name could hurt the sentiments of its residents and demanded that the correct name, Mumbai, be used.

The controversy arose during an episode featuring actress Huma Qureshi, her brother Saqib Saleem, and the Shetty sisters. While talking about her bond with Saqib, Qureshi referred to the city as Bombay, explaining that she felt at home with him despite not being originally from the city. This comment drew criticism from the MNS, who have historically been vocal about protecting the identity and pride of Mumbai.

In a post on X, Khopkar stated in Marathi, that even though 30 years have passed since Bombay was officially renamed Mumbai, the term Bombay is still frequently used by celebrity guests on The Kapil Sharma Show, Delhi-based Rajya Sabha MPs, show anchors, and in many Hindi films. He noted that the name change was officially recognized by the Maharashtra government in 1995 and by the Central Government in 1996, preceding similar renamings in other major cities such as Chennai, Bengaluru, and Kolkata.

Khopkar further emphasized the seriousness of the matter during a media interaction in Mumbai. He stated that Sharma had been working in Mumbai for many years and described the city as his land of work. He added that the people of Mumbai admire him and watch his shows, and warned that the city and its residents should not be insulted, cautioning Sharma against repeating the mistake.

He added that if the reference had been made unintentionally, the mistake should be corrected immediately. Khopkar stated that all guests on the show, including celebrities and the host, should be informed in advance to refer to the city as Mumbai. He warned that if this is not followed, the MNS would launch a strong agitation.

The Great Indian Kapil Show has recently been renewed for a third season. Its first two seasons, comprising 13 episodes each, premiered in 2024, featuring a mix of Bollywood celebrities and entertainers. The controversy marks one of the few instances where the city’s political groups have publicly intervened over the naming of Mumbai on popular entertainment platforms.

Continue Reading

Latest News

Indian-origin motel manager beheaded in the US

Published

on

In a horrifying incident in Dallas, Texas, an Indian-origin motel manager, Chandra Nagamallaiah, was brutally beheaded by a guest following an argument over a malfunctioning washing machine. The gruesome attack was carried out by 37-year-old Yordanis Cobos-Martinez in front of Nagamallaiah’s wife and children, leaving the family traumatized.

According to court records and affidavits, the confrontation began when Nagamallaiah reportedly told Cobos-Martinez not to use a broken washing machine at the Downtown Suites motel. The suspect became enraged, partly because the manager relied on a woman present for translation instead of speaking directly to him. Surveillance footage later revealed Cobos-Martinez producing a machete and repeatedly stabbing and cutting Nagamallaiah, despite the efforts of his wife and child to intervene.

The affidavit details that the victim tried to flee to the motel’s front office while screaming for help, but the attacker followed him and continued the assault. Cobos-Martinez removed Nagamallaiah’s key card and cellphone before ultimately beheading him. Disturbing footage reportedly shows the suspect kicking the severed head across the ground before throwing it into a trash bin.

Cobos-Martinez, a Cuban national with a long criminal history, including convictions for grand theft, carjacking, false imprisonment, and sexual offenses, was arrested shortly after the attack. Authorities found him a block away wearing a blood-soaked T-shirt, along with the victim’s key card and cellphone. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials noted that Cobos-Martinez should not have been in the country at the time, as previous attempts to deport him to Cuba were unsuccessful due to his criminal record.

The Department of Homeland Security described the beheading as unthinkable and stated that the case highlights the critical need for strict immigration enforcement. A witness to the attack told NBC DFW that they could not explain what they saw, describing the suspect as appearing there and not there at the same time, emphasizing the surreal and terrifying nature of the crime.

This shocking incident has left the Dallas community and Nagamallaiah’s family in deep distress, as authorities continue their investigation into the motive and circumstances surrounding the brutal murder.

Continue Reading

India News

AAP MP Sanjay Singh accuses J&K authorities of house arrest, Farooq Abdullah condemns move

Published

on

Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) MP Sanjay Singh on Thursday accused Jammu and Kashmir Lieutenant Governor Manoj Sinha of placing him under house arrest while he was in Srinagar to protest the detention of the party’s sole J&K MLA, Mehraj Malik.

Singh climbed the gate of a government guest house in Srinagar to meet National Conference (NC) chief Farooq Abdullah and later shared visuals of the interaction on social media. He said it was a very sad thing that Abdullah, who has served multiple terms as Chief Minister of Jammu and Kashmir, came to meet him at the guest house after learning about his alleged house arrest but was not allowed to do so. Singh further questioned the authorities’ actions, asking whether if this is not dictatorship, then what it is.

Malik, the MLA from Doda Assembly seat, has been detained under the Public Safety Act (PSA) on charges of disturbing public order. This marks the first instance of a sitting lawmaker being booked under the PSA, which allows authorities to detain individuals without charge or trial for up to two years. Singh alleged that Mr. Malik’s detention was retaliation for raising people’s issues in his constituency.

Abdullah also condemned the attempts to stop Singh from holding his protest. In a statement to news agency ANI, he said that preventing Singh from exercising his right to protest was absolutely wrong and accused the Lieutenant Governor Sinha of misusing his powers. He stressed that the right to protest is guaranteed by the Constitution of India, noting that Jammu and Kashmir being a union territory gives the LG significant authority, which, according to him, was being used for the wrong purposes. Abdullah questioned whether it was necessary to prevent Singh from speaking and asserted that this is not an autocracy, there is a constitution here.

Abdullah drew parallels with the recent unrest in Nepal, where protests led to the resignation of Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli, and cautioned that India must safeguard its Constitution to prevent similar circumstances. He urged the LG to uphold constitutional principles, warning that failure to do so could risk unrest, and emphasized the need to take care of the Constitution before such a fire breaks out in the country.

Other opposition leaders, including AAP chief Arvind Kejriwal and Shiv Sena (UBT) leader Sanjay Raut, also expressed concern over the move, condemning what they described as an infringement on democratic rights.

Continue Reading

Trending

© Copyright 2022 APNLIVE.com