Court urged to change words in verdict
APPEAL FOLLOWS ALLEGATION GOVERNMENT HAS NOT PRESENTED FACTS CORRECTLY BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT
Under attack from the opposition, the government yesterday approached the Supreme Court seeking a correction of its order on Friday in the Rafale verdict, saying a note submitted by it in a sealed cover has led to the misinterpretation of a CAG report being examined by the Public Accounts Comittee (PAC), leading to an error in the judgement.
In an application filed before the top court, the government said it is seeking a correction with regard to two sentences in paragraph 25 of the judgement delivered on Friday.
“The error in these two sentences, as explained hereinafter, appears to have occurred, perhaps, on account of misinterpretation of a couple of sentences in a note handed over to this court in a sealed cover,” the government said.
“The observations in the judgement have also resulted in a controversy in the public domain, and would warrant correction by this court in the interest of justice.”
No such report exists
The Centre’s application followed the Congress allegation that the government has not presented the facts correctly before the Supreme Court and has “lied” in the court. The party, quoting from the judgement, said the government told the court that the PAC has examined the CAG report on the Rafale deal, whereas no such report exists.
In paragraph 25 of the judgement, the court observed that “the pricing details have, however, been shared with the CAG, and the report of the CAG has been examined by the PAC. Only a redacted portion of the report was placed before Parliament and is in public domain”.
The government said in its application that these statements appear to have been based on the note submitted by the Union of India, along with the pricing details, in two sealed covers.
These notes in sealed covers, the government said, were submitted in compliance with the court’s October 31 order, in which it had said it would like to be apprised about the details about the pricing/cost, particularly the advantage thereof, if any, which again would be submitted to the court in a sealed cover.
In that note, which was in the form of bullet points, the government said the second point carried the sentence “the government has already shared the pricing details with the CAG. The report of the CAG is examined by the PAC. Only a redacted version of the report is placed before Parliament and in public domain”.
The government said it may be noted that what has already been done is described by the words in the past tense, that is, the government “has already shared” the price details with the CAG.
“This is in the past tense and is factually correct. The second part of the sentence, in regard to the PAC, is to the effect that ‘the report of the CAG is examined by the PAC’.
“However, in the judgement, the reference to the word ‘is’ has been replaced with the words ‘has been’, and the sentence in the judgement [with regard to PAC] reads ‘the report of the CAG has been examined by the Public Accounts Committee’.”