Rafale case: Centre faces searching questions from SC for opposing review petitions

The Centre, which accused former Union ministers Yashwant Sinha, Arun Shourie and lawyer Prashant Bhushan of relying on stolen documents to seek review of judgement dismissing petitions on the Rafale fighter jet deal, faced searching queries from the Supreme Court that also also asked, "are these documents untouchable" for consideration by courts.

"We can understand you saying that petitioners came with unclean hands. That they got the documents through doubtful sources. But it is another thing to say that the court cannot consider these documents at all. That they are untouchable," a bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi observed.

The remarks by the bench came when Attorney General K K Venugopal insisted that the review petitions and a perjury application filed in the matter has to be dismissed as the petitioners were also averse to disclosing the sources of the documents which were stolen from the Defence Ministry.

The high voltage hearing witnessed the bench, also comprising Justices S K Kaul and K M Joseph, asking the Centre: "When there is allegation of corruption, can the government take shelter under national security?
"If an act of corruption is committed in Rafale deal, will govt take shelter behind Official Secrets Act? I (CJI) am not saying it is committed, but if it is then government cannot take shelter behind OSA."
During the hearing, the bench also mentioned the Bofors pay off scam and said, "There were allegations of corruption in Bofors. Now will you say the same thing that a criminal court shouldn't look into any such document in that case? Here we have an open system."
The attorney general replied: "Yes, we have an extremely open system here. This is the only country where a court is examining a defence deal as if it is an administrative issue. No other court in any other country will do it."
The hearing also saw the bench asking the Attorney General, "Can relevant evidence be cut out saying it is illegally obtained? Can't stolen evidence be looked into if it is relevant?
Venugopal said: "They have come with a document which is stolen. Your Lordships might have your view on it but I have a different view."
This led bench to say, "If your submission is that petitioners have not come bona fide, then that's different. But can you say that the document is completely not touchable?"