Rafale jets not for 'ornamentation', necessary for security of nation: Centre to SC

The Centre strongly defended before the Supreme Court on Friday its deal to buy 36 Rafale fighter jets from France, saying they were not for "ornamentation" but essential for national security.

A bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi reserved verdict on the pleas, including the one filed by former Union ministers Yashwant Sinha, Arun Shourie and activist lawyer Prashant Bhushan, seeking review of its December 14 judgement which gave clean chit to the deal.

Attorney General K K Venugopal, appearing for the Centre, referred to the fact that Air Force in 2001-02 had raised the issue of acquiring 156 combat aircrafts.

"The period from 2007 to 2015 was a great setback as combat aircraft are very essential for the country," the top law officer said, adding that "this is not for the purpose of the ornamentation. This is very essential for security".

Dealing with the scope of judicial review in cases relating to defence procurement, he said, "No court in the world will go into what is to be purchased in a defence deal".

Vehemently opposing the submissions of lawyer Prashant Bhushan, he sought dismissal of the review petitions saying that the basic grounds of these pleas were the same as in the main case.

"The Supreme Court has already decided the challenge to the Rafale deal. I would still say that the petitioners are seeking review of the judgment on the basis of secret stolen documents," he said.

He then referred to a clause 10 of the IGA between France and India and said that it mandated maintaining the secrecy of the deal.

"So far as the price is concerned, it is covered Article 10 of the inter-government agreement (IGA). Pricing under Article 10 was not supposed to be discussed in public domain", he said.

The Centre, however, shared the pricing details and the defence acquisition procedures with the court, he said.

He also referred to the CAG report and said that it has been found that the government got the jets at 2.86 per cent lower price.

The government is under obligation to put defence material under cover, he said, adding, "When the security of the country is involved, you do not view it as a contract to build a highway or a dam".

On the issue of registration of the FIR as mandated by the apex court judgement in the Lalita Kumari case, the law officer said, "There has to be a prima facie case, otherwise they (agencies) cannot proceed. The information must disclose commission of cognizable offence."