CJI Ranjan Gogoi says ‘there is no reason for interference in the choice of offset partner and perception of individuals can’t be the basis for roving inquiry in sensitive issue of defence procurement’. #RafaleDeal— ANI (@ANI) December 14, 2018
CJI Ranjan Gogoi says ‘we can’t compel government to purchase 126 aircrafts and its not proper for the court to examine each aspect of this case. It isn’t a job of court to compare pricing details.’ #RafaleDeal https://t.co/DWHMCpqIRa— ANI (@ANI) December 14, 2018
The Supreme Court has clearly stated that it is outside their jurisdiction to probe into the #RafaleDeal. We continue our demand for a Joint Parliamentary Committee to investigate the #RafaleScam. Sign this petition to demand transparency: https://t.co/NnqEJCCgOX— Congress (@INCIndia) December 14, 2018
Supreme Court: We are satisfied that there is no occasion to doubt the process. A country can’t afford to be underprepared. Not correct for the Court to sit as an appellant authority and scrutinise all aspects. #RafaleDeal https://t.co/djJheTLAhr— ANI (@ANI) December 14, 2018
The court said nobody questioned the procurement of Rafale jets when deal was finalised in September 2016. It added that questions were raised on the jet deal only after former French president Francois Hollande came out with the statement. This cannot be the basis of judicial review, it said. The court said it cannot compel the government to procure 126 or 36 fighter jets. That depends on its decision. The verdict was pronounced on a batch of pleas seeking a court-monitored probe into deal. The apex court reserved its verdict on the batch of pleas on November 14. Advocate ML Sharma was the first petitioner in the case. Later, another lawyer Vineet Dhanda had moved the apex court with the plea for court-monitored probe into the deal. AAP leader Sanjay Singh has also filed a petition against the fighter jet deal. After the three petitions were filed, former Union ministers Yashwant Sinha and Arun Shourie along with activist advocate Prashant Bhushan moved the apex court with a plea for a direction to the CBI to register FIR for alleged irregularities in the deal. (PTI)]]>
Today’s SC judgment will NOT bring an end to the #RafaleDeal controversy. It is not a legal judgment, a pure Nationalist one. The French National Financial Prosecutor’s office might start an investigation soon. #RafaleDeal is a broad daylight loot & will continue to haunt Modi.— Ashok Swain (@ashoswai) December 14, 2018
NDTV that the former CJI wasn’t taking decisions independently. “We are sure that the Chief Justice was not taking decisions on his own,” he said. Justice Joseph said the decision to hold the press conference was taken after being sure that the then CJI was “under an external influence”. Asked about the Judge BH Loya case, justice Joseph said he cannot comment on it and that this chapter is now closed. To a query as to who was remote-controlling justice Misra, Justice Joseph said they “could not pinpoint who was behind”. One instance that was pointed out at the press conference itself was the allocation of cases in the apex court. The allocation of petitions seeking a re-investigation into the death of judge Loya — as is commonly perceived — was not the only reason for the press conference, he said. “That was the issue on that day. Doesn’t mean it was the only issue we were disturbed with. There were several issues… in the matter of allocation of cases and governance of the Supreme Court,” he said. The Supreme Court on April 19 rejected the PILs seeking probe into the death of special CBI judge BH Loya, ruling he had died of “natural causes”. Loya, who was hearing the high-profile Sohrabuddin Sheikh fake encounter case, died of cardiac arrest in Nagpur on December 1, 2014, when he had gone to attend the wedding of a colleague’s daughter. BJP President Amit Shah was among others who were the accused in the case when he was the Minister of State for Home in Gujarat. Shah was subsequently discharged by a trial court. On the issue of minority tag being a hindrance to career progression, justice Joseph told PTI: “I am totally talking about my own case as it was perceived that I became the Supreme Court judge only because I belonged to the minority community”. He said, “But this was not the case, as things became clear it was found that my appointment was on the basis of merit”. Justice Joseph also advocated that selection of judges in the higher judiciary be on the basis of merit and nothing else. (PTI)]]>
The internecine feud in the CBI turned murkier on Monday with a senior officer, MK Sinha, dragging the names of NSA Ajit Doval, Union minister Haribhai Parthibhai Chaudhary and CVC KV Chowdhury over alleged attempts to interfere in the probe against CBI Special Director Rakesh Asthana, who has been divested of his duties and sent on leave along with his boss. KV Chowdhury did not respond to queries when his reaction was sought while Doval, the National Security Advisor, was not immediately available for comments. An official in the minister’s office said he was not aware of the matter. Sinha, who was probing the FIR against Asthana, the CBI’s number 2, and important cases like the PNB scam involving Nirav Modi, made a litany of sensational allegations in his petition before the Supreme Court that sought urgent hearing for quashing his transfer to Nagpur. Advocate Sunil Fernandes, appearing for Sinha, informed a three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi that his client has “got some shocking revelations” in his petition and sought urgent listing and hearing on Tuesday along with the plea of CBI director Alok Verma. “Nothing shocks us,” the Bench, also comprising Justices SK Kaul and KM Joseph, shot back, as it ruled out an urgent hearing and asked Fernandes to be present in the court when it will hear Verma’s plea challenging the government’s decision to divest him of duties and sending him on leave. Sinha claimed that as a result of his transfer to Nagpur he has been taken out of the probe team investigating the FIR against Asthana. “The transfer is arbitrary, motivated and malafide, and was made solely with the purpose and intent to victimise the officer as the investigation revealed cogent evidence against certain powerful persons,” he alleged. In his 34-page petition, Sinha, a 2000 batch IPS officer from Andhra Pradesh cadre, alleged that the CBI director briefed Doval on October 17 about registration of a case against Asthana. “Subsequently on the same night, it was informed that the NSA has informed Rakesh Asthana about registration of the FIR. It was informed that Rakesh Asthana reportedly made a request to the NSA that he should not be arrested,” the petition said. Sinha, while supporting the affidavit of Deputy Superintendent of Police officer AK Bassi, who has also been transferred to Andaman and Nicobar Islands, claimed Bassi favoured immediate search of public servants involved in the bribery case (relating to Asthana) but the “Director CBI did not give immediate permission and reverted that the NSA has not permitted the same.” The CBI booked Asthana on allegations of receiving bribe from an accused Manoj Prasad probed by him in a case linked to meat exporter Moin Qureshi. Sinha said during interrogation of a middleman Manoj Prasad, who was arrested in the bribery case allegedly involving Asthana, the names of Doval and Samant Kumar Goel, Special Director of India’s external intelligence agency (R&AW) cropped up. “As per Manoj Prasad, Dineshwar Prasad, his father, retired as Joint Secretary, and has close acquaintance with Doval. This was one of the first things Manoj claimed on being brought to CBI HQ and expressed complete surprise and anger as to how CBI could pick him up, despite his close links with Doval,” Sinha said, adding Manoj claimed. Sinha said Manoj “taunted” the CBI officers and asked him to “stay in limits”. He said on October 20, searches were conducted at the residence and the office of Devender Kumar, DySP, CBI who was investigating the Moin Qureshi case. The reason for the searches was based on certain inputs provided by Special Unit, based on legal interception. “While the search was on, a phone call was received from Director CBI instructing to stop the search. At that time, the applicant (Sinha) was sitting in the BSF&C office and asked the Director, to which the Director replied that this instruction has come from NSA Shri Doval,” Sinha alleged. Sinha, in his plea, also alleged that Hyderabad-based businessman Sathish Babu Sana, who is the complainant in the case against Asthana, told during interrogation that sometime in the first fortnight of June 2018, a few crores of rupees was paid to Union minister Haribhai Parthibhai Chaudhary, at present Minister of State for coal. “As per Sana, Harbhai had intervened with the senior officers of CBI through the office of Minister of personnel…to whom apparently, the Director CBI reports to. “The money was paid through one Vipul of Ahmedabad. These facts were disclosed to me by Sana on October 20 in the forenoon,” Sinha said in his petition. Sinha, presently the DIG (Head of Branch) in CBI’s Anti-Corruption Branch at Nagpur, also claimed Sana said that he met the Central Vigilance Commissioner KV Chowdhary along with one Gorantla Ramesh somewhere in Delhi and they discussed Moin Qureshi’s case. “As per Sana, subsequently, Chowdhary called Asthana to his residence and made inquiries. Asthana informed to the CVC that there is not much in evidence against them. There is no illegality in this, but the same is put on record here for the sake of completeness. No verification was undertaken and the same is based on disclosure made by Sana,” he said. Sinha also alleged that Union Law Secretary Suresh Chandra had contacted Sana while the proceedings were going on in the CVC against Alok Verma. Chandra rejected as fake the allegation.