Attorney General KK Venugopal on Wednesday told the Supreme Court, which is hearing review petitions in the Rafale deal case, that certain documents pertaining to the purchase of the fighter jets have been stolen from the defence ministry. Venugopal objected to the arguments made by lawyer Prashant Bhushan when he started reading out from a note in the Supreme Court. Bhushan argued that the Supreme Court would not have dismissed the plea seeking probe into the Rafale deal case had “critical facts” were not suppressed by the government. KK Venugopal told the court that the documents relied upon by advocate Prashant Bhushan were stolen from defence ministry by “present or former employees”. Venugopal informed the apex court that an investigation has been ordered into the stolen papers. Also read | ‘Rafale to join IAF inventory in September,’ says IAF chief Dhanoa The Narendra Modi government signed an agreement with France in 2016 for the purchase of Rafale fighter jets. Under the Rs 59,000-crore deal, French firm, Dassault Aviation will supply 36 Rafale fighter jets to India in flyaway condition. The attorney general argued that the notes published in a newspaper and annexed in the review petition are “privileged” and cannot be taken note of. He said the court is dealing with defence purchases that involve security of the country. “Recent incidents have shown how sensitive it is so far as defence purchases are concerned…Such a scrutiny will affect future purchases. Countries would be hesitant before entering. They would say we would have to pass hurdles of parliament and TV channels and finally the court,” said Venugopal against the review petitions in Rafale deal case. Also read | Supreme Court to hear petition to review Rafale verdict today He also told the court that prosecution would be launched against the two papers and the lawyer who has annexed it with the petition. Earlier, Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi refused to accept any fresh affidavit by Prashant Bhushan asking him to confine his arguments to the documents already submitted in the court. The Rafale deal ran into controversy after the opposition parties led by the Congress alleged irregularities in signing of the contract with the French company. Some people including Bhushan and former Union ministers Yashwant Sinha and Arun Shourie moved the Supreme Court last year seeking independent probe into the Rafale deal. The Supreme Court dismissed the pleas observing that due process was followed in signing the Rafale deal. The court also said that it did not find any “commercial favouritism” in the contract.<doc-sep>Prashant Bhushan allegedly criticised the court on appointment of M Nageswara Rao as interim CBI director A group of eminent citizens moved the Supreme Court in order to intervene in the contempt petition filed by Attorney General KK Venugopal and the Centre against advocate Prashant Bhushan for his alleged criticism of the court on appointment of M Nageswara Rao as interim CBI director. The intervention applications were filed by prominent civil society activists, academics like Aruna Roy, Wajahad Habibullah, Nikhil Dey, Arundhati Roy, Harsh Mander, Jayati Ghose, Prabhat Patnaik, Indu Prakash Singh, Shailesh Gandhi and Bezwada Wilson. Another application was filed by a group of senior journalists including Arun Shourie, Mrinal Pande, Paranjoy Guha Thakurta, Manoj Mitta and N Ram. The applicants, while stating the facts leading up to the tweets and seeking to implead as respondents in the petition to face the same consequence as Prashant Bhushan, said they would have said and done similarly given the circumstances. Also, they stated that the tweets do not amount to contempt of court in any case. Applicants brought to the attention of the court that the issue of whether the media can in general write and comment on pending court proceedings involving matters of public interest has been examined by this Court in many cases. "In a catena of cases the Court has upheld this right to freedom of expression of the media even in matters that are sub judice and the duty of courts to uphold the freedom of the Press and invalidate laws and orders that interfere with or are contrary to the Constitutional mandate," the applications read. While issuing a notice to Prashant Bhushan on the contempt petitions, a bench headed by Justice Arun Mishra had also sought to expand the scope of the petitions with the larger question of whether it is open for lawyers or any other person to criticise the court in a sub judice matter which would lead to influence public opinion. The bench had asked Mr Bhushan to respond on the contempt petition filed by the AG and the Centre. The case will come up for hearing on March 7. Justice Arun Mishra during the hearing had said, "Contempt is Brahmasthraand it should not be used frequently." Mr Bhushan had accused AG Venugopal of furnishing a "fabricated" document on minutes of the high-powered selection panel with regard to the appointment of Mr Rao as interim CBI director. AG Venugopal's petition has referred to Mr Bhushan's February 1 tweets in which he alleged that the government appeared to have misled the top court and had submitted fabricated minutes of the meeting of the high-powered selection committee comprising Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Justice AK Sikri and senior Congress leader Mallikarjun Kharge. Mr Rao was appointed as interim director of the CBI in January this year after the then CBI Director Alok Verma was transferred from the post.<doc-sep>
A three-judge bench of the Supreme Court is scheduled to hear the matter. (Representational Image) New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday began hearing a petition seeking a review of its December 14, 2018, judgement in the Rafale jet purchase matter in the open court. Attorney General KK Venugopal said documents relied upon by advocate Prashant Bhushan were stolen from Defence Ministry by present or former employees. “We are dealing with defence purchases which involve security of the state. It is a very sensitive case. Investigation is underway on documents relating to Rafale deal was stolen,” Venugopal added. Venugopal said those who put documents on Rafale deal in public domain guilty under Official Secrets Act and contempt of court. Attorney General also asked for dismissal of Rafale review petition and perjury application as they relied on stolen documents. He said that Wednesday’s The Hindu report on Rafale amounts to influencing the hearing in Supreme Court and is itself contempt of court. Supreme Court said it won’t look into any supplementary affidavits or other documents not filed before it. CJI Ranjan Gogoi said that hearing advocate Prashant Bhushan does not mean Supreme Court was taking on record documents on Rafale deal. The Supreme Court asked the Attorney General to inform after lunch (at 2 pm) what action has been taken on theft of documents on Rafale deal. Earlier, the Supreme Court had refused to order a probe on the deal. It had said that there was “no occasion to doubt” the Centre’s decision-making process. The petition referred to the CAG’s audit of the deal and states that at the time of the Supreme Court’s verdict, no CAG report existed. The petition further alleged that the ruling government misled the court into a non-existent report as the basis of its observation on Rafale’s pricing in the judgement. It also claimed that information that came to public domain after judgement had ‘misled’ court on various counts. The Congress has been relentless in attacking Modi government and has accused Anil Ambani of corruption in the deal. However, both the government and Ambani have denied the allegations.