MANOHAR LAL SHARMA AND ANOTHER...................PETITIONERS

                                              VERSUS

NARENDRA DAMODAR DAS MODI AND OTHERS…………………RESPONDENTS
 

 

JUDGEMENT DELIVERED BY- RANJAN GOGOI, CJ , SK KAUL, J, KM JOSEPH, J

BREIEF FACTS:

The petitions filed as Public Interest Litigation under article 32 of the Constitution of India. In the same case the four writ petitions filed respectively. The petition has been filed by Manohar Lal Sharma practicing law of the same court for the registration of an FIR under relevant provisions of the Indian penal code 1860 and the court monitored investigation. The  further relief of quashing the intergovernmental agreement of 2016 for the purchase of 36 Rafale jets.

ISSUES INVOLVED:

·    ~Whether the decision- making process that let the central government to buy or purchase only 36 aircrafts in lieu of 126 aircraft suffer from irregularities.

·    ~Whether the rafale deal suffers from pricing irregularities,  considering that the cost of per unit is higher than price of negotiation in the UPA government.

·   ~Whether the central government has given the contract  deal to Reliance defence Limited as partner without the approval of ministry of defence, as it is obligatory and compulsory by clause 8.6 of the defence offset guidelines.

     ~Whether the Rafale Deal has been qualified an intergovernmental between two contracting countries i.e India and France.

RULES INVOLVED:

Article 32, Article 10, Clause 8.6 of Defense offset Guidelines, Article 19(1)(a) Section 3, Section 5(1) of the official secret Act and section 8(1) (a) and Section 8(2) of the Right to Information Act and 123 of the Evidence Act.

REFERRED CASE LAWS:

S.P. Gupta V. Union of India:The court held that a claim of immunity against disclosure under section 123 of the Evidence Act has to be essentially adjudged on the touchstone of the PIL and to satisfy itself that public interest is not put jeopardy by requiring disclosure the court may even inspect the document in question though said power has to be sparingly exercised.

In  Jagdish Mandal V. State of Orissa( 2007): the court has held that it was not to exercise the power of Judicial review even if a procedural error is committed to the prejudice of the tenderer since private interest can be protected while exercising such Judicial review.

Siemens Public Communications Network PVt.. Ltd v. Union of India (2008): The court observed that “ The extent of permissible judicial review in the matter of the contract and there cannot be any uniform standard or depth for the same.”

JUDGEMENT

The court held- There is no reason from any intervention by this court on this sensitive issue of negotiation and purchase the 36 Rafale Aircraft by the central Government of India.

ANALYSIS

The court very clearly brought out the overlapping horizons in this court to step into the arena of what is technically feasible or not. According to the court there was no substantial record to show that this a care of commercial favouritism. Therefore their is no reason for intervention in the said matter.

CONCLUSION

Lastly After pursuing all the facts and contention from the both the sides. We came to the view that it is not a matter of commercial favouritism. Therefore the petition is dismissed.