French aircraft Rafale lands during the inauguration of the 12th edition of AERO India 2019 air show at Yelahanka airbase in Bengaluru, on Wednesday. (PTI)The Supreme Court will hear petitions seeking review of its December 14, 2018 judgment in the Rafale jet purchase matter in the open court on March 6.
A bench of Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi and Justices S K Kaul and K M Joseph will take it up after a Constitution bench headed by the CJI hears the Ayodhya matter, which is listed on the same day.
There are two review petitions in the Rafale matter — one by former Union ministers Yashwant Sinha, Arun Shourie and advocate Prashant Bhushan, and the other by AAP MP Sanjay Singh. Last week, the court allowed the prayer to hear them in open court. The bench will also take up the government’s application seeking certain corrections in the December 14 judgment.
The bench comprising the CJI and Justices Kaul and Joseph had on December 14 dismissed petitions seeking a court-monitored probe into the purchase of the jets from France, finding “no occasion to doubt the (decision-making) process” leading to the award of the contract, and said there was no material to show that the government had favoured anyone commercially.
Shourie, Sinha and Bhushan sought a review of the judgment, saying the court had relied on “patently incorrect” claims made by the government in its note submitted in a sealed cover to the bench which heard the original petition. They claimed that more information had come to light subsequently and not considering them would result in grave miscarriage of justice and requested that it be heard in open court.
Sanjay Singh in his petition alleged contradictions in the statements of the government.
A day after the judgment, the Centre had approached the court seeking correction in the part where it said that a report of the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) on the pricing of the fighter jets “has been” examined by the Public Accounts Committee (PAC). The opposition had raised a hue and cry over this, saying the CAG report on the matter had still not been drawn up when the judgment was delivered.
In its application, the government termed the controversial portion appearing in paragraph 25 of the verdict as an “error” and submitted that it may have “crept in” due to “misinterpretation of a couple of sentences in a note” it had “handed over” to the court “in a sealed cover”.
