Scope of apex court’s intervention
ON October 10, three petitions were listed before a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court comprising Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and K.M. Joseph seeking its intervention to make the Rafale deal more transparent and ensure accountability of the key players. But even before the bench heard the petitions, doubts were cast whether the petitioners had the public interest in mind in approaching the Supreme Court or were motivated by extraneous considerations. It was felt that as the court was likely to reject the petitions on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction and competence, it would be construed as a “clean chit” to the Centre on the merits of the deal.
One petitioner, Tehseen Poonawalla, sought the court’s permission to withdraw his petition because he, like the Congress party to which he belongs, realised belatedly that the court was not the right forum to seek disclosure of the details of the deal. The bench granted him permission to do so and dismissed the petition as withdrawn.
The bench heard the other petitions and found that it needed some details of the decision-making process that resulted in the deal with France before answering their main prayers for intervention. It said:
“We make it clear that we are not issuing any notice at this stage on either of the writ petitions filed under Article 32 of the Constitution. However, we would like to be apprised by the Government of India of the details of the steps in the decision making process leading to the award of the order for the defence equipment in question, i.e., Rafale jet fighters (36 in number).
“We also make it clear that while requiring the Government of India to act in the above terms, we have not taken into account any of the averments made in the writ petitions which appear to be inadequate and deficient. Our above order is only for the purpose of satisfying ourselves in the matter.
“We also make it clear that the steps in the decision making process that we would like to be apprised of would not cover the issue of pricing or the question of technical suitability of the equipment for purposes of the requirement of the Indian Air Force.
“The requisite information sought for will be placed before the court in three separate sealed covers on or before 29th October, 2018, which shall be filed with the learned Secretary General of this court and not in the registry. List the matters on 31st October, 2018.”
It is clear that the bench has concluded that the petitioners made inadequate and deficient averments and that their petitions deserved to be rejected on these grounds. Yet, the bench appears to have reserved its decision to dismiss the petitions, until it finds some bare details, as the Centre is willing to provide, so as to satisfy itself about the “legitimacy” of the decision-making process. The bench has made it clear that it is not concerned with the pricing or suitability or with the averments in the writ petitions.
However, the bench’s decision to ask the Centre to