Page 43 - 31MAY2019E

defence

A mistake in interpretation cannot be by the court. pate even before the CAG report came
the basis of review of an entire judg- Lawyer Prashant Bhushan submit- that the pricing details of Rafale will
ment. The government is under obliga- ted that the judgement did not deal be redacted. In a report submitted in
tion to put defence material under cov- with the prayer seeking probe into the November 2018, how did they know
er, he said. The bench asked the Centre deal and decided the petition on the that the CAG report in February next
as to why there was no condition in the premise that it was seeking cancella- year would redact pricing details,” the
IGA that the jets would be made at HAL tion of IGA. He said that Centre misled lawyer asked.
as mentioned in the earlier deal. the court by referring to non-existent Shourie also advanced arguments
Venugopal said that it could not CAG report in November, 2018 hear- on his plea seeking perjury prosecu-
materialise on grounds like more man ing when it is on record that the report tion of some government officials for
power required by HAL in producing came later in February this year. misleading the court during earlier
those jets here. “The lives of the pilots “How did the government antici- hearing. The government alleged that

were at risk. The 126 MMRCA pro- On May 10, the Centre the petitioners are seeking more docu-
cess was not working...so a conscious had strongly ments to start a “fishing and roving
decision was taken by the head of enquiry”, he said adding that these
the government to go ahead with the defended before the papers are, in fact, in public domain.
procurement of the 36 Rafale jets,” he Supreme Court its deal “Our intention is that the documents
reportedly said. be seen by the court,” he said. “There is
On the issue of dissent note by the to buy 36 Rafale jets something called the Arms Trade Treaty
three members of the Indian Negoti- of which France is a signatory and India
ating teal on the issue of pricing and from France, saying is not because we found the treaty dis-
alleged parallel negotiation by the PMO, they were not for criminatory. The treaty gives immunity
he said later the three dissenting INT to signatories, but a sovereign guaran-
members agreed. The concerns raised ‘ornamentation’ but tee overrides this treaty and would pro-
by the three members were referred essential for tect India’s interests,” he said.
to Defence Acquisition Committee and
said that these issues cannot be decided national security letters@tehelka.com

Tehelka / 31 may 2019 43 www.Tehelka.com