At 3.30 pm the Supreme Court reserved its order.

The Rafale purchase has embroiled the Modi government in a spat with the Opposition, with the Congress flying repeated sorties to bring the government down. In the process, Prime Minister Narendra Modi has been caught several times in the open sky; strafed with surface to air Congress missiles. Modi has been called “Chor” and “liar” with Rafale maker Dassault CEO Tappier arraigned alongside him, one of the “40 chors and liars” in Alibaba Modi’s squadron.

“How can prime minister make a statement regarding purchase of aircraft before the agreement was finalized?” asked a petitioner. The Prime Minister was accused of “serious fraud.” And “why cut down from 126 to only 36 aircraft?” was another killing question. The court was learning more and more by the minute as the proceedings went from minute to minute.

CJI Gogoi asked to be told of the offset clause, what’s it, explain? To which AG KK Venugopal said the “offset partner has to be selected by the vendor (Dassault). Additional secretary of defence ministry Subhash Chandra explained the offset guidelines to the court, which will not make sense to the common urban Indian with no specialized knowledge, best left to pass.

Point is, the government was getting grilled and till an hour into it, there was no smell of being burned. Justice KM Joseph asked, “Why the change in offset guidelines in 2015?” a legit question. The CJI, some say, helped the AG with “your own note says the withdrawal process had begun in March 2015.” How did this help the AG? Joseph’s question was “why?” not “when?” At another level, the CJI was told by the AG, who was also explaining why bids were not invited and that HAL was not chosen because “HAL was taking longer than Dassault.”

The long and short of the government’s argument was that procedures were followed. PIL guru Prashant Bhushan wanted to know why the conditions set for inter-governmental agreement were not satisfied, adhered to. CJI Gogoi asked which other countries are flying Rafale and was told Egypt, Qatar and France. Justice Joseph asked, “What was the need to amend offset guidelines with retrospective effect? Additional secretary (defence) replied that it was for the government to accept the choice made by the original equipment manufacturer of the offset partner.

The CJI wanted to know if there was sovereign guarantee for the deal. AG Venugopal, concluding his arguments, answered: “There is no sovereign guarantee but a letter of comfort by France. This is a sensitive issue involving the security of (the) country… IAF has been writing to us that it will be difficult to defend our country due to shortage of aircraft, we have fallen behind a lot.”

Prashant Bhushan, no friend of Modi, said “they have said in their unsigned note that the reason for scrapping 126 aircraft deal is due to differences between Dassault and HAL.” He referred to the statement of Dassault chairman, who had said that he was not “looking forward” to the deal. Meaning HAL’s goose was cooked! Bhushan added that the object of inter-governmental agreement was only to obviate the need for tender.

By then, the IAF guys had left and to the ordinary mind there was nothing much to make out of the to-and-fro in the court. Besides, the lunch hour was on upon the court and there was more than Rafale rumbling. Pricing was not discussed, only the procedure. The government invoked “national security” and if that found purchase with the court is something nobody was talking about. Petitioners want an FIR, and a court monitored CBI probe into the deal.

HAL apparently could not meet the standards demanded and was knocked out of the equation by Dassault. Kapil Sibal, speaking for the Congress, said the land acquired by Anil Ambani was acquired after the deal was struck and smelled of a scam which PM Modi was trying to cover up with his “usual expansive self.” The government kept reiterating all was in fine order, and please don’t complain, it was a matter of protecting India. (IPA Service)