Halfway house

SC order on Rafale doesn't address key issues

Wednesday’s order of the three-judge bench of the Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, on the Rafale deal left much to be desired. Hearing writ petitions against the defence aircraft deal announced by Prime Minister Narendra Modi and then French President Francois Hollande in 2016, the apex court only asked the government to furnish details of the decision making process, that too in a sealed cover. It clarified that the court did not want any information on the pricing and technical details of the deal. Even though Attorney General K K Venugopal objected to the judicial review of a sensitive deal, the court set October 29 as the deadline for the information to be provided. The court also set October 31 as the date for the next hearing. While the court’s demand is a setback for the government given that it has refused to divulge crucial details about the deal despite mounting public and political pressure, it does not address critical issues.
 

The Rafale fighter is a twin-engine medium multi-role combat aircraft manufactured by French aerospace company Dassault Aviation, and India’s purchase of 36 Rafale aircraft in a flyaway condition is part of a process of upgrading the air force’s equipment. However, the deal has been mired in one controversy after another. To begin with, the Opposition alleged that the government had weakened the Indian Air Force (IAF) by scuppering a 126-aircraft contract, which was close to finalisation when the Congress was in power, and instead purchased just 36 Rafales while short-circuiting due procedure. Moreover, the government has been accused of paying a much higher price without necessarily obtaining a superior fighter plane. There have also been accusations of crony capitalism against the government as a private group has been chosen, ignoring public sector Hindustan Aeronautics Limited, for discharging offsets related to this deal.

The government’s stand on Rafale has been perplexing. Last year, the Union defence minister promised to reveal what Dassault had bid in the cancelled tender and what India eventually paid. But she subsequently backtracked on grounds of confidentiality. This created confusion and gave an impression that the government had something to hide. These notions strengthened after former president Hollande, with whom the Indian PM signed the deal, said that the private sector partner was India’s choice. Mr Modi’s continued silence only worsens the situation for the government. The fact is that in a democracy the government must account for the expenditure of public funds, and shirking that duty by citing national security would set a bad precedent.

No questions have rightly been raised about the capabilities of the Rafale jet, but the corruption allegations have persisted. The unfortunate aspect is that the apex court has not asked the government to come clean on the deal. A fair part of the reason for the concerns about Rafale relates to the process adopted, but even here the details that have been asked for will be available only to the court. This is unfortunate as there is no reason why the government should not be asked to disclose the facts, figures and rationale needed to address the allegations against the deal.