On Friday, 14 December, the Supreme Court dismissed petitions demanding an independent probe into the purchase of 36 Rafale jets by the Indian government.
In paragraph 25 of the judgment, the apex court referred to the pricing of the deal — stating that the government refused to reveal the pricing of the deal citing national security concerns. The SC, however, said that the government has submitted the pricing to Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG) – who has placed it before the the Public Accounts Committee of Parliament (PAC). The Congress has denied that any of this happened.
The government has, on the other hand, written to the SC stating that “this is the procedure that is usually followed.” The court instead understood that “this was what actually happened.”
What is the implication of this ‘tense’ situation? Can it shape the future course of the case?
Alok Prasanna Kumar of the Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy says that the court’s interpretation will “not going to make much of a difference.”
“I don’t think the court’s interpretation is going to make much of a difference. It however shows the court’s excessive reliance on the note,” said Kumar, speaking to BloombergQuint.
He added that even if the court were to look into the pricing, there is no basis for it to compare the pricing to.
“There is no way for the court to say what is the right price to buy rafale jets. The court will not say this is a matter that required immediate enquiry because there is nothing to compare it with,” said Kumar added.
Supreme Court lawyer Sidharth Luthra said that it was important to determine whether accurate facts were placed before the court or if the SC misinterpreted the report that was submitted.
“The SC kept its hands off pricing. But it appears that one of the factors the court considered was that the price at which the Rafale jets were bought was known to the PAC. Whether it was inaccurately placed by the government to it was a matter of understanding of the court — it is to be determined whether this if at all, has had an impact on the court and whether it has caused an error apparent on the face of the record,” said Luthra.
But, would it influence the overall verdict if the court has misinterpreted the report? Not really, adds the apex court lawyer.
He added that while the court could have decided not to go into pricing, as it’s understanding was that that it was already placed before the relevant authority –– that is the PAC, Luthra pointed that that since the court was not looking into pricing it was “immaterial” whether it was placed before the PAC or not.
“It is possible that while the court may consider that it is an error but still not intervene because it doesn’t change the ultimate course of the decision,” Luthra said.
(At The Quint, we are answerable only to our audience. Play an active role in shaping our journalism by becoming a member. Because the truth is worth it.)