Rafale price out of SC debate
JET DEAL Govt backs secrecy clause, petitioners raise alleged irregularities; top court reserves verdict
NEWDELHI: The Supreme Court of India said it would for now steer clear of the contentious pricing issue in the controversial Rafale deal, in a move that should bring some relief to the government, but reserved its judgement after a day-long hearing of petitions demanding a court-monitored Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe into the deal.
The petitioners, activist and lawyer Prashant Bhushan, former union ministers Arun Shourie and Yashwant Sinha, Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) Rajya Sabha MP Sanjay Singh and advocates ML Sharma and Vineet Dhanda asked for an investigation on four grounds: lack of transparency over the pricing of the jets; an offsets deal that seemed to favour a private firm; flouting of due process in closing the deal; and that the deal isn’t a government-to-government deal at all as it has been pitched because France refused to offer India a sovereign guarantee and instead gave it a letter of comfort.
The government has previously denied most of these allegations and also said it cannot disclose pricing details publicly on account of a secrecy clause in its agreement with France and to ensure India’s enemies do not get to know details of the India-specific enhancements and weaponry of the Rafale. It has submitted details of the price in a sealed envelope to the Supreme Court, though, and the court said it would not get into the pricing issue.
“We are yet to take a call on whether it (cost) should be
brought in public domain,” Chief Justice of India (CJI) Ranjan Gogoi told attorney general KK Venugopal. The government has also explained the process followed in an affidavit filed to the court, which has also been shared with the petitioners.
Finally, it has always maintained that the choice of an offset partner is not its, but that of the aircraft-maker, Dassault Aviation. The petitions asked for the registration of a criminal case under the anti-corruption law.
At an election rally in Chhattisgarh, Congress president Rahul Gandhi alleged the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) government bought the planes at ~1,600 crore a piece as against the ~526 crore for each aircraft fixed by the Congress-led United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government, according to news agency Press Trust of India.
The three-judge bench and the AG discussed various aspects of the deal in detail, especially on the four points raised by the petitioners who presented their arguments first.
The court spent a lot of time trying to understand the details of the Inter Governmental Agreement between India and France for the purchase of 36 aircraft, which had replaced a previous deal-in-the-works between India and Dassault Aviation for 126 aircraft, of which 108 were to be assembled in India by the stateowned Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL). The petitioners attacked the foundations of the new deal, signed by the NDA in 2016, and announced by Prime Minister Narendra Modi in 2015, by claiming it could not be a government-to-government deal because there was no sovereign guarantee provided by France. Indeed, this was raised by the law ministry too when the deal was being worked on, but the Cabinet Committee on Security signed off on it despite there being no guarantee from France, which was only willing to provide a letter of comfort. France also insisted that India’s dispute resolution be with the manufacturer and not with it.
A former government official directly involved in defence purchases said there was nothing unusual about this.
“All Intergovernmental Agreements are subject to negotiations including clauses about dispute resolution and sovereign guarantee. IGAs are negotiated agreements in which nothing is written in stone. India has bought arms earlier on the basis of a letter of comfort from Russia and other countries as well,” said Amit Cowshish, former chief financial advisor (acquisition).