This photo released by the French Army Communications Audiovisual office (ECPAD) shows French army Rafale fighter jets (File/French Army/ECPAD via AP)The Supreme Court will on Wednesday pronounce its verdict on Centre’s preliminary objection that privileged documents can’t be relied on for re-examining its December 14, 2018 order that dismissed PILs for a probe into alleged irregularities in the procurement of 36 Rafale fighter jets from France. A bench of Chief Justice Rajan Gogoi, Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice KM Joseph will decide if the documents submitted by the review petitioners can be taken as ‘evidence’ in court.
After The Hindu newspaper had published an article alleging irregularities in the Rafael deal, the government had last month told the apex court that documents related to the Rafale aircraft deal were stolen from the Defence Ministry. The government had also threatened The Hindu newspaper with the Official Secrets Act for publishing articles based on them.
In an affidavit submitted to the court last month, the government had sought a dismissal of the petitions. The government told the top court that certain documents submitted by the review petitioners were “sensitive to National Security” and their “unauthorized photocopying and leakage” constituted “penal offences under the Indian Penal Code including theft”.
The government affidavit, filed by Defence Secretary Sanjay Mitra, said since the review petition was “in public domain” and “available to the enemy/our adversaries”, national security had been put “in jeopardy” because the documents relate to “war capacity of combat aircraft”. The affidavit sought removal of these documents from the records.
Former Union ministers Yashwant Sinha and Arun Shourie and advocate Prashant Bhushan, who have filed the review petition against the apex court’s verdict, had referred to The Hindu article to allege irregularities in the deal. However, Attorney General KK Venugopal had argued that the write-ups were based on stolen documents. An investigation into the theft is on, the attorney general had told the court.
