SC to consider plea for recall of Rafale verdict

The Supreme Court on Thursday agreed to consider a petition seeking a recall of its verdict that gave a clean chit to the government's acquisition of 36 Rafale fighter jets and initiation of perjury proceedings against officials, who allegedly misled the court by giving false evidence and suppressing information.

The application has been moved by former Finance Minister Yashwant Sinha, journalist-turned-politician Arun Shourie and activistlawyer Prashant Bhushan.

Sinha, Shourie and Bhushan had on January 2, sought a recall of the verdict contending that the court had "relied upon patently incorrect claims made by the government in an unsigned note given in a sealed cover."

Seeking an open court hearing, the petitioners had in their review petition, faulted the judgment on several counts, including on information that has come into public domain after the pronouncement of the December 14 judgment.

However, their plea was dismissed along with a clutch of petitions seeking a review of the SC verdict in the acquisition of Rafale fighter jets from French firm Dassault Aviation. On Thursday, the bench headed by CJI Gogoi agreed to take up the plea after Bhushan also mentioned his application for action against officials, who allegedly suppressed information and misled the court.

The review petition will be heard by a bench comprising CJI Gogoi, Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice K.M. Joseph -- judges who had heard the Rafale deal case and pronounced the December 14 judgment.

Seeking direction for identification of officials who allegedly misled the court or suppressed crucial information from it, the application says that proceedings be initiated against them for offences made out under sections 193 and 195 of the IPC. Pointing out that "false evidence" and "suppression of information" by the government in its "notes" has lowered the court's dignity and majesty, the application urged the court to consider taking suo motu action against it. "The untruths and suppression of information in the ‘notes' constitute perjury and also contempt as the ‘notes' were submitted pursuant to the orders of the court," the plea reads. It also said that the note on pricing was not shared with the petitioners. "From the notes on the 'decision making process' and 'offsets', and judgement of the court based on ‘notes' submitted by the government, more than one untruth and suppressions are apparent," it said.