Statement of ex-French Prez Hollande triggered PILs which can't be scrutinised: SC

The Supreme Court said Friday that a statement made by former French president Francois Hollande triggered the filing of pleas against the Rafale fighter jet deal, which cannot be scrutinised based on "mere press interviews and suggestions".

The top court, which junked PILs challenging the deal between India and France for procurement of 36 Rafale jets, took note of the fact that the controversy came to light and pleas were filed after Hollande purportedly made startling revelations that the French side was told to choose a Reliance firm as its Indian Offset Partner (IOP).

A bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi said that Rafale jet deal was sealed on September 23, 2016 and "nothing was called in question then".

"It is only taking advantage of the statement by the ex-President of France, Francois Hollande that these set of petitions have been filed, not only qua the aspect which formed the statement, that is, the issue of IOPs but also with respect to the entire decision-making process and pricing.

"We do not consider it necessary to dwell further into this issue or to seek clause-by-clause compliances," said the bench, also comprising Justices S K Kaul and K M Joseph.

The top court took note of subsequent vehement denials of Hollande's claims by the present French government and its Indian counterpart and concluded that mere press interviews cannot form basis of judicial review.

Referring to Defence Procurement Procedures (DPP) of 2013, the bench said they envisaged that the vendor (Dassault Aviation) will choose its own Indian offset partner (IOP).

"In this process, the role of the Government is not envisaged and, thus, mere press interviews or suggestions cannot form the basis for judicial review by this court, especially when there is categorical denial of the statements made in the Press, by both the sides.

"We do not find any substantial material on record to show that this is a case of commercial favouritism to any party by the Indian Government, as the option to choose the IOP does not rest with the Indian Government," the apex court said in its verdict.