Flying with impunity

Afresh controversy over the 2015 Rafale fighter jet deal urgently demands a robust explanation from the government. This time the revelations from a French anti-corruption agency claim that commissions worth ^508,925 were paid to an Indian middleman in a purportedly government-to-government contract. The payment was listed as a “gift to clients” paid by Rafale manufacturer Dassault to Sushen Gupta of Defsys, who is being investigated for money laundering in the purchase of helicopters from Agustawestland. This money, according to Dassault, was part-payment for the manufacture of 50 replicas of the aircraft by an Indian company with links to Mr Gupta. Though some of these models are on display, outside the residence of the air chief, for instance, there is no evidence that they were manufactured by Mr Gupta’s company. Mr Gupta has denied these charges, which the French agency sourced from the Indian Enforcement Directorate’s case file on him that claimed he illegally obtained confidential documents from the defence ministry to help the French side get a better bargain.

But significantly, the government, which otherwise projects itself as a model of probity, has not cared to come up with a robust explanation nor order an investigation. So far, its only response has been a sarcastic comment from Union Law Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad pointing to alleged Congress involvement in the Agustawestland deal. The government’s brazen reluctance to explain itself has been a common thread in the controversy since as far back as 2017. The institutional checks and balances to investigate such a large commitment of taxpayer money have also proven erratic. For instance, on Monday, the Supreme Court agreed to hear a petition filed by an advocate on the deal only after two weeks. In 2018, the apex court dismissed multiple PIL (public interest litigation) petitions for a court-monitored investigation into the Modi government’s deal with the French government for 36 aircraft — and it based its decision on the remarkable basis that it had found no irregularities in evidence that the state produced in sealed covers, surely a novel way for a Constitutional guardian of democracy to pronounce judgment.

In 2019, it dismissed an appeal (PIL) for a review petition following media revelations that two domain experts of the Indian negotiating team had questioned key aspects of the deal. To this, the government’s response was that the leaked documents were classified; the court dismissed that contention. But its dismissal of the review petition was done on grounds that it had limited scrutiny of defence contracts under its Article 32 jurisdiction. The Comptroller and Auditor General, too, has been expansive in extending its clean chit to the deal. Its report said the deal was 2.87 per cent cheaper than a 126-aircraft one concluded by the United Progressive Alliance (subsequently cancelled by the Modi government), which was more modest than government claims of 9 to 20 per cent. But the CAG’S report redacted all price figures at the insistence of the defence ministry, which stated that confidentiality was a condition of the Indo-french agreement. All told, the unique reluctance to subject the Rafale deal to open scrutiny at a time when the same government’s enforcement machinery is — rightly — subjecting Mamata Banerjee and Maharashtra’s Maha Vikas Aghadi to investigation speaks of double standards.