Raffle deal does not have corruption: Supreme

It is not the job of the court to determine the price of the aircraft on the basis of some 'doubt', satisfied with the documents on the deal: the court

(PTI) New Delhi, Ta. November 14, 2019, Thursday

The Supreme Court on Thursday rejected the plea seeking a reconsideration of its decision to give the government a clinch on a raffle deal. Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, Judge Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Judge K. like this. Joseph's bench said the fact that the central government had been working on a reserve contract before him for a long time could not be denied. The bench concluded a hearing on May 10 in the politically sensitive case.

After the hearing, the bench said that the verdict in this case would be heard later. The Supreme Court did not agree on the issue of whether the Rafael deal had been disposed of without question by the Supreme Court.

The ruling party has claimed that the Supreme Court had given the Narendra Modi government a second time cleansing the Supreme Court in rejecting the reconsideration petition. "After examining on a merit basis on three aspects such as decision making, pricing and offset, there is no need for FIR or further investigation in this case," the bench said. A reconsideration application cannot be accepted unless there is an apparent error in the judgment. '

The Bench said that the fact that the aircraft contract deal was long reserved for different governments and there was no dispute about the requirement of these aircraft could not be ignored. The bench said, "The decision-making process does not have the power to conduct a court inquiry on three aspects - pricing and offset, and even in a limited context.

Apples and oranges cannot be compared: Supreme

With regard to the alleged irregularities at the time of purchase of the jet, the Supreme Court said that it was satisfied with the documents available on the deal and it was not the court's duty to determine the price of the aircraft by working only on the basis of 'doubt' of some people. The internal system of such pricing takes care of the situation. Based on the available documents we have found that apples and oranges cannot be compared. This allows the comparison of basic airplane prices, with little difference overall. The best decision on what weapons to put on the aircraft and which should not be left to the proper authority system.

The final decision in the process must be made only by the competent authority

Regarding the decision-making process, the court said that the applicants had objected to the contradictory material on the basis of obtaining certain documents. Although we clearly believe that experts can express different opinions during the decision-making process, the final decision has to be made by a competent authority.

Court cannot decide on technical aspects: Center

Judge Joseph, quoting the previous deal, asked the Center why the technology acquisition agreement was not signed in an intergovernmental agreement with the French system on Rafal. In response, the Attorney General stated that the court cannot decide on such technical aspects. On the question related to the concession of guarantee guarantees, etc. in the agreement, Venugopal said that this was not an unprecedented exercise and mentioned such agreements with Russia and the US, in which such exemption was granted. He said this was a question of national security. No other court in the world will investigate the defense deal on such arguments.

What was the case

The Supreme Court on December 14, 2018 issued a sum of Rs. The Rs 58,000-crore raffle deal rejected petitions seeking investigation against alleged irregularities. However, while holding a hearing in this case, the Supreme Court had questioned the Center on various issues related to the deal, including "no waiver of guarantee and no transfer of technology in the agreement". Former union ministers Yashwant Sinha and Arun Shourie and activist-lawyer Prashant Bhushan, among others, filed reconsideration petitions in the Supreme Court over the ruling.

Truth won, Rahul apologizes to country: BJP

New delhi date. 14

Welcoming the Supreme Court's decision to dismiss reconsideration petitions on the raffle issue, the BJP said that the victory of truth has been won, this is a major victory of the Modi government. Congress leader Rahul Gandhi should apologize to the country.

BJP President Amit Shah said that those who put their personal politics above the interest of the nation should apologize. The Supreme Court's verdict is a powerful response to those who support baseless and hateful propaganda on the Raphael issue. The Supreme Court has once again stamped on the Modi government being transparent and corruption-free.

The Supreme Court has won the truth and Rahul Gandhi, who made baseless allegations of corruption in the Rafale deal, should apologize to the country. BJP's acting president JP Nadda said that Rahul Gandhi and Congress have tried to mislead the country from the road to the parliament, but the truth has been won. I hope Rahul Gandhi apologizes to the country.

Supreme Court verdict won't hinder CBI probe: Judge Joseph

The CBI is expected to function independently of the central government: Judge K. like this. Joseph

New delhi date. 14

The Supreme Court on Thursday rejected the reconsideration requests for its ruling in the raffle deal. However, the judge involved in the bench of three judges who gave the verdict. like this. Joseph said that even if these reconsideration petitions were rejected, the CBI could investigate the complaint by filing an FIR.

Because this appears to be cognizable crime. But for that, the agency has to get government approval under Article 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Cancellation of reconsideration applications will not hinder the CBI's investigation.

Judge Joseph said he clearly believes the Supreme Court's December 14, 2018 reconsideration applications are rejected. However, it is his personal opinion that the decision on reconsideration petitions should not be impeded by the CBI's inquiry if the law takes action on the basis of the complaint.

However, under Section 17-A of the Anti-Corruption Act, the CBI must seek government approval before taking action. In the Lalita Kumari verdict, the Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court held that an FIR is compulsory even if information on Cognizable Crime is disclosed and no preliminary investigation is allowed in such case.

Judge K. like this. Joseph said Thursday that the country's highest investigative body will work with the CBI government in a "completely independent" manner and is expected to adopt a fully professional approach with "high quality" and non-constitutional independence and neutrality. The CBI is well-equipped to conduct all kinds of investigations.

Ruffle case clears up Modi government despite ...

Now Rahul Gandhi calls for a JPC inquiry into the raffle issue

BJP celebrates without verdict; Supreme Court opens path to criminal investigation: Congress

New delhi date. 14

Despite the Supreme Court's denial of petitions demanding an investigation into the raffle deal, the allegations by Congress remain unchanged. Congress leader Rahul Gandhi claimed that the Supreme Court ruling has opened the way for the JPC investigation.

Congress, on the other hand, has opened a new front on this issue. The Congress claimed that the BJP was celebrating after the Supreme Court, but this is not a celebration, it is time for investigation. The Supreme Court has opened the way for criminal investigation in this case.

After a bench of three Supreme Court judges headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi rejected the reconsideration petition on the raffle deal, Rahul Gandhi tweeted that Supreme Court Justice Joseph Rafal had not opened the door to scam. An investigation into this should begin. The Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) needs to be constituted for investigation into this scam.

Congress spokesperson Randeep Surjewal said the Supreme Court's decision proves that the Supreme Court has not opened a criminal investigation into the Rafale case. He said that it was not an occasion for the BJP to celebrate, but to proceed on a criminal investigation.

The Supreme Court said that our hands may be bound within the constitutional limits. But no other agency's hands can be tied. Surjewal said the Supreme Court decision made three things clear. The first or the court held that it had a limited right under section 32. The Supreme Court said that an independent agency other than us can investigate the case.