SC to hear Rafale review pleas in open court

The petitioners contend the judgment based on a hypothetical CAG report was not merely a “clerical or arithmetical slip” but a substantial error.

A Rafale jet performing, during the AERO INDIA 2019 at IAF station Yelahanka, in Bengaluru.

A Supreme Court Bench led by Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi on Tuesday posted the review petitions filed in the Rafale case against the December 14 judgment for open court hearing. "The prayer for open court hearing is allowed," the Bench, which also comprises Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and K.M. Joseph, said in its short order after considering the review petitions by circulation in their chambers. The date of hearing the review petitions is not given in the order. Review of a Supreme Court verdict is a rare legal remedy. The court allows to review its own judgment only on the face of any apparent errors or if there are violations of the principles of natural justice. Usually review petitions are decided in chambers. Hence, the court's decision to hear the Rafale review in open court is uncommon. The open court hearing is to decide the question whether the Bench should admit the review. Oral arguments would be addressed by the petitioners and countered by the government in this regard. The review petitions filed by former union ministers Yashwant Sinha and Arun Shourie, advocate Prashant Bhushan, and Aam Aadmi Party MP Sanjay Singh allege that the apex court judgment is riddled with fault lines. They want the court to re-consider its “erroneous” judgment, which relies on a “non-existent” CAG report to uphold the Rafale deal. The petitioners contend the judgment based on a hypothetical CAG report was not merely a “clerical or arithmetical slip” but a substantial error. They want a “recall” of the verdict. The petitioners said the CAG was an independent constitutional body accountable only to the Parliament.  The petitions argue that the government’s claim that the CAG’s final report on Rafale would be in a redacted form was simply untrue. In fact, the government cannot dictate to the CAG what should or should not be redacted. The petitioners has also questioned the judgment’s dismissal of lack of sovereign guarantee from the French government’s side as a “minor deviation”.