#rafale deal controversy in supreme court

[knockingnews-blog]

राफेल मामले पर दोबारा होगी सुप्रीम कोर्ट में सुनवाई, मोदी सरकार को बड़ा झटका

राफेल मामले पर दोबारा होगी सुप्रीम कोर्ट में सुनवाई, मोदी सरकार को बड़ा झटका

सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने राफेल सौदे पर नरेंद्र मोदी सरकार को झटका दिया है. शीर्ष अदालत ने मोदी सरकार को दी गई क्लीरन चिट की पुनर्विचार याचिकाओं पर केंद्र की आपत्तियों को खारिज कर दिया है. तीन जजों की बेंच ने एकमत से कहा कि जो नए दस्ताीवेज सामने आए हैं, उनके आधार पर याचिकाओं का निपटारा किया जाएगा. याचिकाकर्ताओं ने विभिन्न अखबारों/पोर्टल्स पर छपी खबरों का हवाला देते हुए केंद्र को दी गई क्लीग चिट…

[pgurus]

Why is the Modi government unable to send anyone to jail in corruption cases?

With the BJP party coming to rule in 2014, the Prime Minister Narendra Modi had famously stated himself as the “Chowkidar” of the wealth of the Nation. He had very sternly made a promise to eradicate the corruption from India. All the promises made stand uncurbed. A recent survey also reveals that the corruption has immensely increased in India and the BJP government is not serious about eradicating corruption.

The BJP government has been relentlessly accusing the ministers of the opposition party against corruption. Recently, the former Union Minister P. Chidambaram was arrested for alleged corruption in the INX Media case. One common point here is, while Chidambaram was the home minister, Amit Shah was arrested by the CBI for the fake encounter case of Sohrabuddin Sheikh. Now P. Chidambaram is arrested when Amit Shah holds the seat of home minister. Since 2014, raids and summons intensify on the members of opposition party when an election is around the corner.

Do not mistaken this as a fight against corruption. If this was a true fight then BJP leadres would not be exempted from enquiries of any sort. This selective nature of anti-corruption is a sharp contrast to the BJP government’s refusal to investigate the most controversial Rafale deal pointing a lokpal for five years.

One such case was of chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis. In the year 2014 Devendra Fadnavis had accused NCP leader Ajit Pawar of the Rs. 70,000 + amount in 9 irrigation scam. Fadnavis had also issued a state anti-corruption bureau inquiry for the same. In November 2019 Devendra Fadnavis and Ajit Pawar were sworn as chief minister and deputy chief minister of Maharashtra from the BJP party. Three days later to Ajit Pawar helping Devendra Fadnavis to pull out the drawing BJP party, 9 irrigation scams files started closing by the CBI. Anti-corruption bureau’s additional director general had sought quoting that the 9 irrigation scam were not linked to then deputy chief minister Ajit Pawar.

Chief justice Ranjan Gogoi is another example of increasing corruption in the clan of Indian leaders. Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi had presided over the five-judge bench of the Supreme Court that had pronounced a verdict in favor of a temple at the site of the demolished Babri Masjid. A female staff of the Supreme Court had accused CJI Ranjan Gogoi for sexual harassment. The staff was prior attached to Justice Vikramjeet Sen as a junior assistant till August 2018. Two months prior to the incident on insistence of CJI Ranjan Gogoi she was transferred to Gogoi’s residence office.

Earlier in May 2019 the in-house committee had made a statement saying they found no substance in the allegations contained in the Complaint dated 19.4.2019 of a former employee of the Supreme Court of India. The three members of the in-house committee were Justices SA Bobde, NV Ramana and Indira Banerjee. The complainant objected the presence of Justuce Ramana and he was replaced by Justice Indu Malhotra. The woman refused to be a part of the committee alleging bias. The report was submitted to the next senior Judge, Justice Patnaik competent, when Justice Gogoi was still the CJI. The case was closed in approximately 21 month by bench of Justices Kaul, Bopanna and Ramasubramanian.

Visit PGurus

[abhay121996-blog]

Rafale Jet Controversy: Why No JPC Probe? Divya Sandesh

#Divyasandesh

Rafale Jet Controversy: Why No JPC Probe?

A Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) probe into the Rafale deal will be able to examine witnesses, access all the government files, which the Supreme Court or the CVC never delved into.

[omprakashchaudhary]

Are Politicians Running for Rights or Recognition?

When the Constitution of India was written, the principal aim was to establish political democracy in the new India. But the social and economic concepts were not aloof from the Constitution. The makers of our Constitution were very well aware of the fact that a democratic country won't survive without strong pillars. In order to establish a welfare state, providing socio-economic justice to the people is equally important. By keeping this in mind, the Constitution laid down some principles and guidelines in Part IV of the Constitution known as the Directive Principle of State Policy.

Directive Principles are based on Nehru-Gandhi principles. It is the amalgamation of Nehruvian imagination of socialistic patterns and the Gandhian model of decentralization along with the Uniform Civil Code. The purpose of assimilating Directive Principles in the Constitution is to balance the politically viable consensus. 

The Non-Justiciability of DPSP makes the government immune from any action against them, and sometimes they take advantage of this fact. Even the court is not authorized to issue the writ of mandamus to the state when they fail to comply with the Directive Principles. 

Mandamus is a writ issued by the Supreme Court or High Court to any person or authority who fails to perform their duty. Raising the issue of mandamus is essential because this writ compels the concerned authority to fulfill his responsibility. If the superior authorities lose this right, one can very well imagine how the people in power will misuse their powers. 

We can't deny the fact that media houses glorify the works of politicians when actually they should be presenting the work of politicians as their duty. It is a bitter truth that the media changes a common man's perspectives by presenting biased reports. Most often, they side with the ruling party and present the duties of the leading members as some kind of charitable work. Because of this influential media power, politicians today are concerned more about showcasing their work on a grand scale. You will never notice them working without a big rally of media houses and cameras following them. 

Politicians are running after recognition and not for rights. A major scuffle between the two leading political parties over the Atal tunnel is quintessential. While it was the idea proposed by the leading member of one of those political parties, the foundation stone was laid by a member of the other political party. The scuffle is all about getting fame for who is responsible for successfully completing the project. Above all, as expected, the media sided with the ruling party when actually they should have presented an unbiased view. The reality is one of them proposed, and one of them accomplished, not out of discretion but out of responsibility. The funding didn't go out of their pocket. It was the money of the common people, and so is the Atal tunnel. It was built for the comfort of common people. 

Another incident where politicians behaved like rowdy people was the inauguration day of Signature Bridge in North-East Delhi. Two different political parties engaged in a brawl, and one of the prominent members got slapped in the chaos. Now, this issue could have been subdued, but the media added fuel to the controversy by igniting the fire between the two political parties. How will the common man behave if the leaders of our society themselves are stooping so low? 

A developed country is the dream of every citizen. Technological advancement, blooming economy, and security for all are the base of a developed country. Since India is a developing country and we don't have the necessary amenities to create our own fighter planes, we borrow them from other developed countries. Recently India bought five Dassault Rafale fighter planes from France. It is the first batch of the deal that includes 36 fighter planes. Now it is a big deal for our country, and we all must take pride in it but was it really important to showcase this news to a large extent. Now, isn't the media supposed to conceal the confidential news that could risk the security of the country? Revealing the news of weapons and aircraft is quite risky. But politicians have to claim their superiority by highlighting the things they do. 

If you take the example of our neighboring countries, the way their media represents their political leaders does not look like a PR campaign. They put forth all the positive and negative views and let the people decide. Media is one of the essential pillars of democracy. But the way India media hypes the political candidates looks more like a clown-work. It clearly shows they are digressing from their actual responsibility. But we can't blame the media entirely. It is actually the politicians who are pulling their strings. No one is actually concerned about leading the country to the right path. While the media runs after the TRPs and marketing strategies, our leaders are running after the recognition and paid vote-bank. 

The most common place where you can see the scuffle between different political parties is the Lok Sabha house. Irrespective of whether any party is putting forward the right point, the opposite parties negate their views. Eventually, it leads to big chaos among all the members. Why do they forget that they are representing the biggest democracy in the world? Is this the example they will set in front of the world? This clearly shows that every political party is busy fulfilling their personal agendas without worrying about the development of the country and the citizens. 

Being a citizen of this country, it is our responsibility not to divert from our perspective and not let our views get influenced by the political presenters. We must trust our conscience and believe in what we see, not what we hear. As Mahatma Gandhi said, "be the change you want to see in the world," we must start the change within ourselves. No matter if the articles of DPSP are Justiciable or not, the politicians are not supposed to misuse their powers. As citizens, we must keep a clear watch on how the leaders of our society or country are fulfilling their responsibilities. Are they really keeping up with the oath they took or just glorifying their image?

Source: Are Politicians Running for Rights or Recognition?

[vilaspatelvlogs]

फिर सुप्रीम कोर्ट में राफेल विवाद: फाइटर जेट की खरीद में भ्रष्टाचार मामले पर दो हफ्ते बाद सुनवाई; दो साल पहले कोर्ट ने क्लीन चिट दी थी

फिर सुप्रीम कोर्ट में राफेल विवाद: फाइटर जेट की खरीद में भ्रष्टाचार मामले पर दो हफ्ते बाद सुनवाई; दो साल पहले कोर्ट ने क्लीन चिट दी थी

Hindi News National Rafale Deal Controversy Update; Supreme Court To Hear PIL After Two Weeks Ads से है परेशान? बिना Ads खबरों के लिए इनस्टॉल करें दैनिक भास्कर ऐप नई दिल्ली4 मिनट पहले कॉपी लिंक SC ने 2018 में राफेल डील की जांच से जुड़ी सभी याचिकाएं खारिज कर दी थीं। – फाइल फ्रांस से हुई राफेल फाइटर जेट की डील एक बार फिर विवादों में है। सौदे में भ्रष्टाचार को लेकर फ्रांस की वेबसाइट मीडिया पार्ट…

[bigyack-com]

Ex-Air Chief BS Dhanoa Says Had Abhinandan Varthaman Been Flying Rafale

BS Dhanoa said defence acquisition system should not be politicised. (File)Mumbai: Referring to the row over the purchase of Rafale fighter jets, former Air Chief Marshal BS Dhanoa on Saturday said that such controversies slow down defence acquisitions, affecting the armed forces' capabilities. "Had Wing Commander Abhinandan Varthaman been flying a Rafale instead of a MiG 21 during the India-Pakistan stand-off post the Balakot strike, the outcome would have been different," he said. Speaking at an event at IIT- Bombay, former Air Chief Marshal Dhanoa said that the Supreme Court gave a "fine judgment" on the Rafale issue (giving a clean chit to the Narendra Modi government). "I have always personally maintained that if you politicise the defence acquisition system, the whole system goes behind," he said. "All other files also start moving at a slow pace because people start becoming very, very conscious," he said. The Bofors deal too got mired in controversy despite the guns "being good", he noted. At the same time, people have the right to ask questions about prices of the aircraft as tax payers'' money is at stake, the former air chief said. "The fact is, because of creating a controversy out of it, the slowing down of defence modernisation later affects you," said BS Dhanoa, who retired in September last year."Like the prime minister made a statement. People are saying it is a political (statement) but the fact is that the statement he made is correct." "If we had Rafale, the question would have been totally different," he said. Read the full article

[ssbprep]

Rafale Judgement: End To Political Dogfights

Rafale Judgement: End To Political Dogfights

The contract the two countries signed on September 23, 2015, included no provision for any purchases beyond the 36 aircraft already agreed to by Pushan DasThe Supreme Court’s rejection of a probe into accusations of corruption and impropriety around the controversial Rafale deal on Thursday lays to rest the political squabbling that has bedevilled India’s plans to replace its fleet of ageing…

[loyallogic]

The Admission of Illegal Evidence in the Rafale Matter

This article has been written by Manjri Singh, student of NALSAR University, Hyderabad.

The recent judgment by the Supreme Court in the review petition by Yashwant Sinha, Arun Shourie and Prashant Bhushan dismissed the preliminary objection by the Respondents of maintainability given the submission of certain illegally procured evidence.[1] In this analysis, the judgment is scrutinized not just in relation to the admission of illegal evidence but also what are the notions or rationale of justice that guides evidence. Evidence arguably affords the judiciary the widest ambit of its discretion although it is significantly curtailed by the Indian Evidence Act. A colonial legislation operating on colonial logic and objectives has not been amended as such and it is important to note that even in the definition of proved given in the Act states that a fact is proved if the Court believes it to be true (or a prudent man would believe it to be true).[2] Such a provision is not as problematic when the evidence presented, admitted and relied on are on public record or reasoned in the judgment available to the public. This provision becomes a lot more problematic when the evidences sought to be relied upon are not available to the public and sometimes even (sufficiently) to the other party in the suit. In this context, it is interesting to note what attitude the highest court of judiciary adopts with respect to possibly illegal evidence, how it was obtained and what constitutes the public arena. This case is based on a high-profile political controversy around the 36 Rafale jets deal signed between India and Dassault. Intertwined in this controversy, are Inter governmental agreements on confidentiality of evidence, claims of national security and sensitivity towards commercial interests as concerns of making public details of the agreement and scores of allegations as to abuse of confidentiality and corruption. 

Click Above

In this matter, an earlier three judge bench comprising of the Chief Justice of India, Mr. Ranjan Gogoi, Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice K.M. Joseph had adjudicated upon multiple Public Interest Litigations that dealt with deal of the Indian government with Dassault for the procurement of 36 Rafale fighter jets that replaced the tender of the United Progressive Alliance for 126 Medium Multi Role Combat Aircrafts, for which again Dassault was accepted as the lowest bidder. 

With respect to evidence, it was ordered that whichever of the sealed documents provided to the Court could be released in the public domain be sent to the Petitioners.[3] The Apex Court also considered the sealed documents provided to it and remarked affirmatively on the need for privacy in some matters and noted that the pricing details and other documents had not been made available even to the Parliament owing to their sensitivity in national security matters. In the same, the Supreme Court had decided on the basis of the sealed documents provided by the Government, that the decision-making process, difference in pricing and the Indian Offset Partner contained no illegality, procedural impropriety and could not be interfered with on any count. 

The revision petition is to be decided by the same bench and on the same facts with three additional documents filed by the Petitioner. The judgment deals with the preliminary objection by the Respondents as to the maintainability of the petition owing to the documents being unauthorizedly removed from the office of the Ministry of Defence, Government of India. The Respondents prayed for the removal of these documents from the record relying on provisions of the Official Secrets Act, Right to Information Act and Section 123 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The Court noted that the documents in question had been published by ‘The Hindu’ newspaper on two dates in the month of February, 2019. This judgment delivered on April 10, 2019 held that the petition would be maintainable and set aside the objection of the Respondent.

The Respondents in this case relied on Section 123 of the Indian Evidence Act amongst other Acts. Section 123 of the Act is as follows:

“Evidence as to affairs of State—No one shall be permitted to give any evidence derived from unpublished official records relating to any affairs of State, except with the permission of the officer at the head of the department concerned, who shall give or withhold such permission as he thinks fit.”

The section deals with the privilege of unpublished official records relating to the affairs of the State being produced. This section is in the nature of an exception to the general rule of admissibility under the Evidence Act[4]. Given the law, in the instant case, the judgment turned primarily on the fact that the documents in question had already been published by a newspaper. Therefore, as the documents were already in the public domain, (a fact accepted by the Respondents which did not even contest the authenticity and accuracy of such documents), there was no reason as to why they should be struck off the record in the case (which was the relief prayed for by the Respondents). At the point, it is noted that there were two separate issues that were dealt with as one by the Hon’ble Court. These are confidentiality and illegality of obtaining the evidence with reference to Section 123 respectively. The Court however, only considered the first, that is confidentiality and went on to re-emphasis the freedom of the press and ultimately also held that the Right to Information Act overrides any contrary provisions in the Official Secrets Act. The researcher believes that this has the following profound impacts on admissibility of evidence. First, it has been held by Courts that illegally obtained evidence is never a factor in consideration of its relevance.[5] However, this case must be distinguished given that it involved concerns of national security and confidential documents. An important factor here is that the documents published in the newspaper was not verified or certified, consequently even if the press was excluded from the purview of Official Secrets Act and Section 123 of the Evidence Act, in using such documents, the originals may have to be ordered to be produced or other classified documents might be ordered thereby intersecting again with the defence of Section 123. A second consideration is that the Apex Court in this case did not deal with the Respondents query as to the method in which the Petitioners had obtained the documents (not from the newspapers?). A stress on confidentiality (which no longer existed) over illegality of obtaining documents as adopted in the Court’s approach could possibly create a loop hole where in confidential documents would be leaked and subsequently used as evidence in Court, keeping in mind the context of national security concerns. This possible loop hole could be avoided using the Court’s verdict on the primacy of the Right to Information Act (RTI) from the judgment itself where Justice K.M. Joseph states that requests under Right to Information Act would be obliged to over the Official Secrets Act should a case be so made, and the copies of documents so obtained would be certified. These certified copies obtained without the Official Secrets Act restriction forms a better method of presenting the same evidence keeping in line with the best evidence principle. This would also sufficiently address concerns of illegally obtained evidence of such nature being published in the media and then being used as evidence which would require further corrobation, a possibility which seeks to threaten the entire rationale of Section 123. It also addresses the problem of partial documents of a series being available and used and thereby creating bias, as the whole series of documents can be availed under the RTI Act. The final question also lies in the evidentiary value of an unverified, uncertified document, the accuracy of which cannot proved by the Petitioning party (a scenario that wasn’t considered due to the manner of objection raised). This solution could have been realised by a simple interpretation that unverified and uncertified documents in the media would not constitute “published” for the purposes of Section 123, as distinguished in an Australian judgment that Justice K.M. Joseph himself quoted[6].

In the last comment, it is mentioned that the Supreme Court in this case although highlighting very relevant principles and judgments that would strengthen democratic processes and values could have rendered a more effective opinion with respect to evidence and its procurement had the difference between mere confidentiality and illegality of method been considered. The researcher has also aimed at providing an alternate interpretation of the Section that accordingly takes all concerns into account.

Endnotes

[1] Yashwant Singh v. Central Bureau of Investigation, AIR 2019 SC 1802.

[2] §3, Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

[3] supra note 1, at Paragraph 14.

[4] State of J&K v. Anwar Ahmed Aftab, AIR 1965 J&K 75.

[5] Pooran Mal v. Director of Evidence, AIR 1974 SC 348.

[6] supra note 1 at para 39 and 40.

The post The Admission of Illegal Evidence in the Rafale Matter appeared first on iPleaders.

The Admission of Illegal Evidence in the Rafale Matter published first on https://namechangers.tumblr.com/

[brushwish3-blog]

THE GIST of Editorial for UPSC Exams : 14 MAY 2019 (Redactive pricing audit and the CAG’s duties (The Hindu))

Redactive pricing audit and the CAG’s duties (The Hindu)

Mains Paper 2: Polity Prelims level: CAG Mains level: Various constitutional bodies

Context

 The Supreme Court’s observations in connection with the Rafale fighter aircraft deal by citing the Comptroller and Auditor General of India’s (CAG’s) report on redacted pricing, and subsequent media reports and the controversy over “stolen files” brought back into the spotlight the role of the supreme audit institution of India.

Background

 Redaction is the selection or adaption by ‘obscuring or removing sensitive information’ from a document prior to publication.

 The CAG is mandated to audit all receipts and expenditures of the three-tier governments in India and report to the legislature judiciously, independently, objectively in compliance with applicable laws, rules and regulations, without fear and favour.

 He conducts financial compliance and performance audits and submits his reports to the legislature to help people’s representatives in enforcing legislative oversight and public accountability of the executive.

 Legislative committees such as the Public Accounts Committee and Committee on Public Undertakings examine the CAG’s selected reports.

Not transparent

 In the preface of the audit report, the CAG stated that redactive pricing was unprecedented but had to be accepted due to the Ministry’s insistence citing security concerns. Consequently, the full commercial details were withheld and the figures on the procurement deal were blackened.

 It was unprecedented that an audit report submitted by the CAG to the President under Article 151 of the Constitution suppressed relevant information.

 Whether the Ministry’s insistence citing security concerns could have been accepted by the CAG can be examined only by the Supreme Court in the light of the constitutional provisions on the CAG’s duties and parliamentary privileges and prerogatives.

 Redactive pricing is nowhere used in SAI audit reports.

 It does not seem to have been used in a government audit by any SAI of any country.

 Redactive pricing in the ‘Performance Audit Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India on Capital Acquisition in Indian Air Force (Union Government – Defence Services, Air Force, Report No. 3 of 2019)’ suppresses more than it reveals. For example, in the Rafale deal, Parliament, its committees, the media and other stakeholders of the CAG’s reports cannot obtain complete, accurate and reliable information due to redactive pricing.

 The reduction in the original requirement, to 36 aircraft, a waiver of the earlier decision to involve Hindustan Aeronautics Limited, observations of the Indian Negotiating Team, cost escalation due to inclusion of bank guarantee and performance guarantee were not compared properly to arrive at the audit conclusion.

Pivotal to procurement

 Pricing is the quintessence of any procurement decision. Along with quality and quantitative specifications, comparative merits and demerits are ascertained, and the pricing of comparable products are compared in decision-making.

 Pricing is an integral part of the procurement decision-making process of any equipment, product, goods or service.

 A strategic competitive advantage of a product, how best it should be procured, how many at a time are to be purchased and at what price and under what conditions, terms, instalments, along with after-service conditions, discounts, commissions and other conditions are evaluated to arrive at a purchase decision.

 Therefore, price integrity and comparative competitiveness are at the heart of any procurement decision.

Complex audit

 The dynamics of international competition in competitive products and pricing in today’s modern market scenario, pricing, delivery and post-delivery service and other conditions are essentially covered in an SAI audit. It is a complex audit, demanding exceptional insight, expertise, knowledge and skills.

 In case the CAG’s office lacks expertise to conduct a performance audit, expertise can be sought from the pool of resources or credible organisations to be coopted in the audit team.

 Pricing decisions must be subjected to detailed analysis, without resorting to redactive pricing.

 Parliament is constitutionally privileged to know what the executive had done and how and under what conditions a procurement was decided.

Conclusion

 The CAG’s audit is expected to highlight value for money in purchase decisions.

 A performance audit is done to establish whether the procurement activity was executed keeping in mind economy, efficiency, effectiveness, ethics and equity.

 Only a thorough pricing audit can bring out the credibility and integrity of a purchase decision, thereby achieving an SAI’s constitutionally mandated responsibilities

Prelims Questions:

Q.1) Consider the following statements regarding 'Departmentally Related Standing Committees': 1. It was established on the recommendation of the second Administrative Reform Commission in 2006. 2. Each standing committee consists of members from both Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha. 3. A minister is not eligible to be nominated as a member of any of the standing committees.

Which of the statements given above is/are correct? (a) 1 and 2 only (b) 3 only (c) 2 and 3 only (d) 1, 2 and 3

Answer: C Mains Questions: Q.1) Do any supreme audit institutions (SAIs) such as the National Audit Office, the Government Accountability Office or Commonwealth countries follow redactive pricing in audit reports?

  Source: https://iasexamportal.com/editorial-gist/14-05-2019-redactive-pricing-audit-and-the-cags-duties-the-hindu

[abhay121996-blog]

Rafale Jet Controversy: Why No JPC Probe? Divya Sandesh

#Divyasandesh

Rafale Jet Controversy: Why No JPC Probe?

A Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) probe into the Rafale deal will be able to examine witnesses, access all the government files, which the Supreme Court or the CVC never delved into.

[u4u-voice]

BJP says Rahul 'liar of first order' after he expresses regret in SC on Rafale remarks

NEW DELHI: BJP demanded an apology from Rahul Gandhi and said he is "liar of the first order" in public opinion after the Congress president expressed regret in the Supreme Court on Monday over his remarks in connection with the Rafale judgment. The apex court on April 15 had given a categorical clarification that in its Rafale judgment there was no occasion for it to make a mention of the contemptuous observation that "chowkidar Narendra Modi chor hain" as has been attributed to it by Gandhi. Addressing a press conference here, BJP spokesperson G V L Narsimha Rao said, "Today, by filing an affidavit in the honourable SC, Rahul Gandhi accepted that he had lied on his allegations against PM Modi on the Rafale deal." "This was an attempt by Rahul Gandhi to manufacture a lie and create a controversy in the Rafale deal... He should apologise to the people of this country," he added. "In public opinion, Rahul Gandhi is a liar of the first order," Rao said. Stating that Gandhi stands guilty in the "court of public opinion", Rao added that all Congress cadres across the country hang their heads in shame that there leader has been blatantly lying on the Rafale jet deal. Gandhi, who filed an affidavit in response to the apex court's April 15 order, said he had made the statement in the heat of political campaigning which has been misused by his opponents. He said he had no intention to lower the dignity of the apex court. He, however, also alleged that the prime minister too has used the SC judgment in the Rafale case to claim the government has been given a "clean chit" in the matter. Read the full article

[richmeganews]

Rafale Scam Controversy: AG KK Venugopal Undermines Investigative Journalism With National Security

Rafale case in Supreme Court: AG KK Venugopal Said Bhushan Submitted Documents Stolen From MoS - Rafale case in Supreme Court: The Congress on Wednesday renewed its attack on the Narendra Modi government at the Centre after Attorney General KK Venugopal told the apex court that certain documents related to the pricing of Rafale fighter jet deal were stolen from the Ministry of Defence (MoD) either by public servants or others and an investigation is pending in this regard. He said that 12 important papers have been missing in this sensitive case related to defence purchases which involve the security of the state.

#RafaleDeal #RafaleDealVerdict #NewsX

For More information on this news visit: http://www.newsx.com/ Connect with us on Social platform at https://ift.tt/13jmY36 Subscribe to our YouTube Channel: http://www.youtube.com/newsxlive

Rafale Deal News Rafale Fighter Jet Deal AG KK Venugopal AG KK Venugopal Rafale Deal Rafale Deal AG KK Venugopal Rafale Aircraft deal Supreme Court on rafale deal Supreme court rafale verdict review Nirmala Sitharaman Rafale Deal Narendra Modi Rafale Deal Rafale Deal Verdict Review Supreme Court SC verdict on Rafale PM Narendra Modi Rafale Deal Rahul Gandhi Rafale Deal Prashant Bhushan Rafale Deal N. Ram The Hindu Chairman The Hindu Rafale Deal Politics On Rafale Deal rafale deal documents stolen rafale deal India

The post Rafale Scam Controversy: AG KK Venugopal Undermines Investigative Journalism With National Security appeared first on .

from WordPress http://www.richmeganews.com/rafale-scam-controversy-ag-kk-venugopal-undermines-investigative-journalism-with-national-security/

[toldnews-blog]

New Post has been published on https://toldnews.com/politics/arun-jaitley-slams-opposition-over-rafale-cbi-issue/

Arun Jaitley slams Opposition over Rafale, CBI issue

New Delhi: Union Finance Minister Arun Jaitley on Thursday took a dig at the Opposition saying that a new class of Compulsive Contrarians, including the Left and dynastic politicians, has emerged to create perpetual propaganda against the Prime Minister Narendra Modi-led government at the Centre.

“There are some in the political system who thought that they were born to rule. Some who were part of the ideological left and the ultra-left obviously found the new government wholly unacceptable. Hence emerged a new class of Compulsive Contrarians,” the Union Minister stated in his blog on Facebook.

Jaitley opined that these Contrarians believe that the Centre could do no good and every act of the government must be opposed. “They picked holes in the proposal to give 10 per cent reservation in education and public jobs to the poor, demonetisation, Aadhaar, surgical strikes,” he said.

“Steps taken against black money were described as Tax Terrorism and successful surgical strikes conducted by the Army were questioned either as a routine or as a dubious process,” he added.

“Compulsive Contrarians had no qualms about manufacturing falsehood. They could concoct arguments even if they went against the general interest of the country. They could masquerade corruption as crusade,” he further said in his blog.

The 66-year-old Union Minister also touched upon the issue of Rafale and accused Rahul Gandhi-led Congress for compromising on national security by delaying the deal for over a decade.

“The purchase of Rafale Combat Aircraft is yet another case of concocted falsehood by the Compulsive Contrarians. This is a deal where Prime Minister Modi should be credited with saving thousands of crores of the country,” he wrote in his blog.

The Rafale jet deal controversy has been on the boil over the last few months. The Congress and other opposition parties have been alleging irregularities in the high-profile deal. The fighter jet is a twin-engine Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft, which security analysts believe can be a ‘game-changer’ for India’s defence system.

Jaitley also slammed the Opposition for attacking the Centre on removal of CBI director Alok Verma and tarnishing the image of investigating agency.

In his blog, Jaitley stated, “Anyone with even a nodding acquaintance of the state-of-affairs in Lutyen’s Delhi would know that a few individuals in our investigative agencies had over the last few years become a law unto themselves. Whispers of what was going on were not uncommon. It is the duty of the sovereign government to ensure the cleaning-up of each of the investigative agencies. The Government was only concerned with their accountability and integrity. The Contrarians chose to side with the questionable. Autonomy is always a great sounding idea. In the absence of accountability, an investigating agency can become a monstrosity. Let any informed person honestly ask himself a question – post the two year fixed tenure functioning following the judgment in Vineet Narain’s case and the statutory amendments that followed, has the quality of the Heads of the Central investigative agencies improved or deteriorated? Two views may be difficult as an answer.”

Further venting anger on the Centre, the minister said: “Today the Contrarians have launched an attack on the Committee headed by the Prime Minister which transferred the CBI Chief. The only question before the Committee was whether there was any material available as a ground to transfer the CBI head? Prima facie, the CVC Report did constitute adequate and relevant material. The Committee is not an appellate forum against the CVC findings. If the same had to be challenged, it can only be challenged in Court. The Committee could not have ignored the CVC report.”

“The nominated Judge – Member of the Committee was attacked for a non-existent conflict of interest and the person who had a real conflict of interest and should have refrained from attending the meeting became the accuser. The leader of the largest single party in the opposition Mallikarjun Kharge was a petitioner before the Supreme Court claiming that the CBI Chief was an honest man and had been wrongly removed for mala-fide reasons and through a faulty process. Having been a campaigner for the ousted chief, he obviously could not have sat in judgment over his innocence or guilt in the Committee. His was a text book case of bias. Any honorable man should have recused himself. His dissent as a biased man is non-est. Yet the conflicted man accuses one of the most honorable Judges of a conflict of interest,” he added.

[ssbprep]

Supreme Court Dismisses All Rafale Review Petitions, Says They Lack Merit

Supreme Court Dismisses All Rafale Review Petitions, Says They Lack Merit

Supreme Court on December 14 last year had dismissed petitions seeking court-monitored probe into Rafale fighter jet deal, saying that there was no occasion to doubt the decision-making process in the deal. The Supreme Court on Thursday refused to go back on its December 14, 2018 order, rejecting a probe into the controversial Rafale dealIt also closed a contempt case filed against Congress…