It seems an absurdity that in its verdict Thursday dismissing the plea by three eminent persons — former Union ministers Yashwant Sinha and Arun Shourie, and senior advocate Prashant Bhushan — for a CBI inquiry into salient aspects of the Rafale fighter deal, the Supreme Court should repeat in substance what it said almost a year earlier, although it had more time to consider the material on record. Citizens would deem it galling that the regrettable judgment, which doesn’t even make a pretence of heeding close arguments in a case of suspected governmental financial malfeasance, and discards them in cavalier fashion, should say: “The endeavour of the petitioners was to construe themselves as an appellate authority to determine each aspect of the Rafale purchase...”
The three-judge ruling was co-authored by outgoing Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justice S.K. Kaul. The CJI seems to have overlooked that on a cold January day, before his elevation, he had stood along with three other judges to question his predecessor’s conduct. When citizens make a case against the powers-that-be, is it tantamount to posing as an “appellate authority”? What are we reducing democratic governance to?
Rejecting the plea for an inquiry, the judgment sees no irregularities on the processes followed (though these were so apparent that even the blind could detect them), the prices struck (that appear heavily padded as 36 Rafale jets ordered cost about the same as the 126 aircraft ordered by the previous government, with both deals having the same India-specific configuration of weapons), or the choice of offset partner (a failed Indian businessmen replacing the public sector HAL).
The judgment has just one redeeming feature—- a single thought by Justice K.M. Joseph that the CBI may inquire into the allegations, if the government permits this. Probably he means a future government.
