The bench headed by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in the Rafale Deal case will deliver the verdict on 14 November. On May 10, the Supreme Court reserved judgment on the review petition filed in the Rafale case. During the hearing, petitioner Prashant Bhushan, Former Union Minister Arun Shourie and others demanded an inquiry into the Rafael Deal case. The central government said that Rafale is the need of the country and demanded that the petition be dismissed. Now a bench headed by Supreme Court Chief Justice Ranjan Gogai will give its verdict. What arguments have been made in this case so far, read here……
Petitioners argue, Center hid facts
During the hearing of the case, on one side, the petitioners said that the Supreme Court Judgment of 14 December 2018 in the Rafale case should be rejected and the Rafale deal should be investigated under the supervision of the Supreme Court. Prashant Bhushan, meanwhile, said that the central government hid many facts from the Supreme Court. The document shows that the PMO had parallel negotiations and this is incorrect. Prima facie the case becomes a cognizable offense and in this case, the old Supreme Court Judgment says that a case should be registered in a cognizable offense and in this case also a cognizable offense has occurred, the Supreme Court should order an inquiry into the matter.
In this case, some petitioners had said that the deal should be canceled. Our argument is different. Our argument is that the Supreme Court has already given the order in the suit related to Lalita Kumari that whenever there is a cognizable offense, there should be an FIR in the case. In the light of this judgment, we want to investigate the matter. The case should be investigated under the supervision of the Supreme Court.
The Judges said on behalf of the petitioners, the Judgment is based on wrong facts as the Central Government had presented the wrong facts before the court in a sealed envelope. Even the government itself filed an application before the court on 15 December 2018, the next day after the Judgment, correcting its mistake.
