The Supreme Court Thursday allowed the Centre's plea seeking correction in Rafale fighter jet case judgement of last year where a reference was made about the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) report and Parliament's Public Accounts Committee (PAC).
A day after that verdict, the Centre had filed an application saying "misinterpretation" of its note has "resulted in a controversy in the public domain".
The application was taken for adjudication along with the petitions seeking review of the December 14, 2018 judgement.
In the Thursday's judgement on the pleas seeking review of the earlier verdict, a bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi first dealt with the aspect of the CAG report.
The bench noted that the Centre has filed an application seeking correction of what they claim to be an error, in two sentences in para 25 of the judgement delivered on December 14, 2018.
Further, it was taken on record that the error was stated to be on account of a misinterpretation of some sentences in a note handed over to the Court in a sealed cover.
The note was given by the Centre in compliance with the apex court's October 31, 2018 order apprising of the details/cost as also any advantage, which may have accrued on that account, in the procurement of the 36 Rafale fighter jets.
The apex court noted that the confidential note in the relevant portions stated as under:
"The Government has already shared the pricing details with the CAG. The report of the CAG is examined by the PAC. Only a redacted version of the report is placed before the Parliament and in public domain."
During the hearing, Attorney General K K Venugopal submitted that the first sentence referred to the sharing of the price details with the CAG.
But the second sentence qua the PAC referred to the process and not what had already transpired. However, in the judgment this portion had been understood as if it was already so done, Venugopal submitted.
Accepting the clarification offered by the Centre, the bench, also comprising Justices S K Kaul and K M Joseph, said: "On hearing counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the confusion arose on account of two portions of the paragraph referring to both what had been and what was proposed to be done.
"Regardless, what we noted was to complete the sequence of facts and was not the rationale for our conclusion," it said.
It added: "We are, thus, inclined to accept the prayer and the sentence in para 25 to the following effect - 'The pricing details have, however, been shared with the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG), and the report of the CAG has been examined by the Public Accounts Committee (PAC)."
It further said: "Only a redacted portion of the report was placed before the Parliament and is in public domain" should be replaced by what we have set out hereinafter:
"The Government has already shared the pricing details with the CAG. The report of the CAG is examined by the PAC in the usual course of business. Only a redacted version of the report is placed before the Parliament and in public domain.
"The prayer is accordingly allowed.
Disclaimer: No Business Standard Journalist was involved in creation of this content
