Supreme Court Dismisses PIL Alleging Corruption in Chhattisgarh Helicopter Deal

The Supreme Court of India recently ruled in Swaraj Abhiyan & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors., addressing allegations of corruption in the purchase of an Agusta A-109 Power helicopter by the Chhattisgarh government. The case involved allegations that the state government had caused financial loss to the exchequer by purchasing the helicopter at an inflated price through an intermediary. The Court, after reviewing the evidence, dismissed the Public Interest Litigations (PILs), finding no material to support claims of corruption.

Background of the Case

The petitions were filed by Swaraj Abhiyan, opposition leaders, and social activists, alleging that the Chhattisgarh government had bypassed due process in the procurement of the helicopter. The key claims were:

• The state government purchased the helicopter at an inflated price by routing the deal through an intermediary.
• There was a possible link between the helicopter deal and offshore accounts allegedly held by the Chief Minister’s son.
• The Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) report indicated a financial loss in the transaction.

The petitioners sought an independent investigation into the purchase.

Petitioners’ Arguments

The petitioners argued:

• The helicopter was purchased through M/s Sharp Ocean Investments Limited, an intermediary, instead of directly from Agusta.
• The price paid was significantly higher than what was offered in earlier negotiations.
• The transaction resulted in an undue financial benefit to the intermediary, suggesting possible corruption.
• There were allegations that the Chief Minister’s son had links to offshore accounts in the British Virgin Islands, warranting an independent probe.

Respondents’ Arguments

The Chhattisgarh government and the Union of India defended the purchase, stating:

• The helicopter was procured following due process, considering operational efficiency and security needs.
• The deal was finalized after a global tender process, and no financial irregularities were found.
• The additional cost was due to early delivery, and there was no evidence of kickbacks.
• Allegations regarding offshore accounts were under investigation by a multi-agency team and did not directly relate to the helicopter purchase.

Supreme Court’s Judgment

No Prima Facie Evidence of Corruption

The Supreme Court ruled that the allegations lacked substantive evidence. The judgment stated:

“There is no material to prima facie hold that the transaction was corrupt or that the purchase caused undue loss to the exchequer.”

CAG Report Did Not Indicate Wrongdoing

The Court noted that the CAG report did not conclusively establish financial mismanagement, ruling:

“The CAG report highlighted a price difference but did not suggest that the deal was illegal or corrupt.”

Dismissal of Political Rivalry Argument

The Court addressed concerns that the PIL was politically motivated:

“A petition under Article 32, without clear evidence of public interest, cannot be entertained at the instance of a political rival merely based on procedural irregularities.”

Final Ruling

The Court dismissed the petitions, stating:

“We do not find any ground to grant the prayers sought in these petitions, which are hereby dismissed.”

Key Takeaways from the Judgment

• PILs Require Substantial Evidence: The ruling reinforces that PILs must be based on clear evidence and not mere allegations.
• Due Process in Procurement Matters: The Court affirmed that procurement decisions must be assessed based on established procedures and not speculation.
• Judicial Caution in Political Matters: The judgment highlights the Court’s reluctance to interfere in matters that may be politically motivated.
• Separate Investigation for Offshore Accounts: The Court clarified that ongoing investigations into offshore accounts do not impact the validity of the helicopter purchase.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Swaraj Abhiyan & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors. sets an important precedent for judicial scrutiny in corruption allegations. By dismissing the PILs, the Court emphasized that allegations must be backed by substantial evidence and not mere suspicion. The decision reinforces the principle that public interest litigations must be used as a tool for genuine grievances and not political rivalries.

Petitioner Name: Swaraj Abhiyan & Anr.
Respondent Name: Union of India & Ors.
Judgment By: Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel, Justice Uday Umesh Lalit
Judgment Date: 13-02-2018

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Swaraj Abhiyan & Anr vs Union of India & Ors Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 13-02-2018.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Public Interest Litigation
See all petitions in Legislative Powers
See all petitions in Judgment by Adarsh Kumar Goel
See all petitions in Judgment by Uday Umesh Lalit
See all petitions in dismissed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments February 2018
See all petitions in 2018 judgments

See all posts in Constitutional Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Constitutional Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Constitutional Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Constitutional Cases Category