Supreme Court Dismisses Review Petition on Rafale Deal: Upholds Government’s Decision

The Supreme Court of India, in the case of Yashwant Sinha & Ors. v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr., dismissed the review petition challenging its earlier decision regarding the Rafale fighter jet deal. The judgment reaffirmed the Court’s previous stand that there was no necessity for an independent probe into the Rafale deal, citing lack of substantial evidence to warrant a review.

Background of the Case

The case emerged from the controversial Rafale fighter jet deal between India and France, where the petitioners, including Yashwant Sinha, Arun Shourie, and Prashant Bhushan, sought a probe into alleged irregularities. The petitioners alleged lack of transparency in the procurement process, favoritism in selecting an offset partner, and suppression of key details from the Court during the initial proceedings.

The Supreme Court had earlier dismissed the petitions in December 2018, ruling that the deal had been conducted transparently. However, the petitioners filed a review petition, citing new documents published by The Hindu newspaper that allegedly exposed discrepancies in the government’s submissions.

Key Issues Raised in the Review Petition

• Whether the government misled the Court by withholding critical details about the Rafale procurement process.
• Whether the newly surfaced documents warranted a fresh probe into the deal.
• Whether the Court should have ordered an independent investigation instead of relying solely on the government’s submissions.
• Whether the government’s attempt to block certain documents under the Official Secrets Act was valid.

Petitioners’ Arguments

The petitioners made the following key arguments:

• The government’s submissions were misleading, as new documents indicated concerns raised by the Defence Ministry regarding parallel negotiations conducted by the Prime Minister’s Office.
• The pricing details of the jets were not fully disclosed, and an independent investigation was required.
• The government invoked the Official Secrets Act to suppress crucial documents that were already in the public domain.
• There was an evident conflict of interest in awarding offset contracts to a particular private entity.

Respondents’ Arguments

The government and the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) defended the deal, stating:

• The Rafale agreement was a matter of national security and was conducted transparently.
• The documents cited by the petitioners were unauthorizedly removed from the Ministry of Defence and were protected under the Official Secrets Act.
• The Supreme Court had already ruled on the matter in 2018, and no substantial new evidence had emerged to warrant a review.
• Any interference in the defense procurement process would set a bad precedent and hinder future deals.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court, in its ruling delivered by Ranjan Gogoi, Sanjay Kishan Kaul, and K.M. Joseph, made the following critical observations:

1. Freedom of the Press and Public Interest

The Court ruled that publication of sensitive documents in newspapers does not automatically invalidate them as evidence. It held:

“The right of such publication would seem to be in consonance with the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech.”

2. No Evidence of Misrepresentation by the Government

The Court rejected the petitioners’ claims that the government had deliberately misled the Court, stating:

“There is no substantial material to show that there was any commercial favoritism or procedural lapses in the procurement process.”

3. Official Secrets Act Does Not Bar Judicial Review

The government had argued that certain documents should not be admissible in court due to their classification under the Official Secrets Act. The Court dismissed this argument, stating:

“The documents published in ‘The Hindu’ newspaper remind the Court of the consistent views upholding the freedom of the press.”

4. Limited Scope of Review Petitions

The Court emphasized that review petitions cannot be used to re-litigate settled matters unless there is a significant procedural lapse or clear injustice. It ruled:

“The review petition lacks bona fides and appears to be an attempt to reopen the matter on the basis of unverified claims.”

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court dismissed the review petition, holding that:

“The review petitions are devoid of merit and are accordingly dismissed.”

Key Takeaways

• Freedom of Press Upheld: The Court reaffirmed that press publications, even if based on classified documents, can be considered in judicial proceedings.
• Review Petitions Have a Limited Scope: The judgment clarified that review petitions are not a second chance to appeal but are meant only to correct manifest errors.
• National Security Considerations Remain a Priority: The Court held that defense procurement processes should not be interfered with lightly.
• No Evidence of Procedural Lapses: The judgment reiterated that the Rafale deal was executed as per the required protocols.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Yashwant Sinha & Ors. v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. upholds its previous judgment on the Rafale deal and puts an end to legal challenges seeking a probe into the agreement. The judgment reinforces that while freedom of the press is vital, it does not automatically warrant judicial review unless backed by strong legal grounds. The decision strengthens the principles of limited judicial intervention in executive decisions related to national security.

Petitioner Name: Yashwant Sinha & Ors..
Respondent Name: Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr..
Judgment By: Justice Ranjan Gogoi, Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Justice K.M. Joseph.
Place Of Incident: India.
Judgment Date: 10-04-2019.

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

Download Judgment: Yashwant Sinha & Ors vs Central Bureau of In Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 10-04-2019.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Fundamental Rights
See all petitions in Public Interest Litigation
See all petitions in Separation of Powers
See all petitions in Judgment by Ranjan Gogoi
See all petitions in Judgment by Sanjay Kishan Kaul
See all petitions in Judgment by K.M. Joseph
See all petitions in dismissed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments April 2019
See all petitions in 2019 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