Centre Asks Supreme Court To Fix "Factual Error" In Rafale Order: 10 Points

Rafale Deal: The opposition has questioned the existence of the CAG or Comptroller and Auditor General's report on the Rafale deal, cited by the Supreme Court.

902 Shares
EMAIL
PRINT
COMMENTS

There was no need for a probe into the Rafale deal, the Supreme Court had said.

New Delhi:  Amid a political storm over the Supreme Court exonerating the government in the Rafale fighter jet deal, the centre approached the top court for a "factual correction" in a paragraph in its judgement which has a reference to the Comptroller and Auditor General report and parliament's Public Accounts Committee or PAC. The Supreme Court had in its judgement on Friday said that the material placed before it shows that the centre did not disclose in parliament the pricing details of the Rafale fighter jet, but revealed it to the government's auditor.
Here are the top 10 developments in Supreme Court's Verdict on Rafale Deal:
  1. The centre in its petition says the Supreme Court misunderstood the procedure mentioned in the sealed cover it submitted to the court - that the Comptroller and Auditor General or CAG had examined the pricing of the jets and submitted its report.
  2. The centre says it only outlined the procedure in the sealed cover along with the pricing details of the 36 fighter jets, and wants the court to issue a clarification.
  3. "...unfortunately, an element of misinterpretation of the statement made in the note/bullet points handed over on behalf of the Union of India in the sealed cover, appears to have crept in. This has also resulted in a controversy being raised in the public domain," the centre's petition says.
  4. The Congress has accused the government of "misleading" the Supreme Court by presenting incorrect facts about the CAG report on the Rs 59,000 crore Rafale deal and demanded that the government should apologise for it.
  5. "The government lied in the Supreme Court that the CAG report was presented in the house and in the PAC, and PAC has probed it. The government said in the Supreme Court that it (the report) is in public domain. Where is it? Have you seen it?" senior Congress leader Mallikarjun Kharge, who is the Public Accounts Committee chairman, said this morning.
  6. The court, rejecting all the petitions before it, had said on Friday, "There is no evidence of commercial favouritism to any private entity."
  7. The Congress has alleged that the centre scrapped a deal for 126 Rafale jets negotiated by the previous UPA government and entered an expensive new contract for 36 jets just to help Anil Ambani's defence company bag an offset partnership with the jet manufacturer Dassault.
  8. The offset clause means that in exchange for the contract, Dassault has to invest half the value of the deal -- about Rs. 30,000 crore -- in Indian firms. Reliance Defence was chosen as one of those "offset" partners and is to manufacture plane parts - though not for the 36 jets ordered by India.
  9. Anil Ambani, in a statement on Friday, said the top court ruling "conclusively established the complete falsity of wild, baseless and politically motivated allegations".
  10. Dassault Aviation too welcomed the ruling on the multi-billion dollar contract. "Dassault Aviation takes note of the Supreme Court conclusions establishing the absence of any irregularities in the decision making process to purchase 36 Rafale, pricing of Rafale jets and selection of Indian offset partner," the company said in a statement.

Disclaimer: NDTV has been sued for 10,000 crores by Anil Ambani's Reliance Group for its coverage of the Rafale deal.





Get the latest election news, live updates and election schedule for Lok Sabha Elections 2019 on ndtv.com/elections. Like us on Facebook or follow us on Twitter and Instagram for updates from each of the 543 parliamentary seats for the 2019 Indian general elections.

NDTV Beeps - your daily newsletter

Trending

Highlights

1
Opposition questioned reference to CAG report, parliament committee
2
Centre says it had only outlined the procedure, court misunderstood it
3
Centre wants Supreme Court to issue a clarification

................................ Advertisement ................................

................................ Advertisement ................................

................................ Advertisement ................................