Summary
In its 14 December 2018 judgment, the Supreme Court dismissed public-interest petitions challenging procurement of 36 Rafale aircraft and seeking investigation. Applying restrained judicial review appropriate to defence procurement, it found no basis to intervene on the decision-making process, pricing or selection of Indian offset partners. The Court expressly confined its views primarily to the Article 32 jurisdiction invoked in these petitions.
Issues
- Whether the decision-making process, pricing and selection of Indian offset partners warranted intervention in the challenged defence procurement.
Provisions considered
- Clause 4.3, Defence Procurement Procedure, 2013, Defence Offset GuidelinesThe vendor’s freedom to select its Indian offset partner informed rejection of the allegation of government-directed commercial favouritism on the material before the Court. (¶¶ 30, 32, 33)
Held
- Judicial scrutiny of procurement decisions concerns illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety. Its depth varies with the subject matter; national security and defence procurement called for greater latitude to the Government, rather than appellate reconsideration of each acquisition decision. (¶¶ 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 22)
- On the material examined and interaction with senior Air Force officers, the Court found the process broadly followed. Possible minor deviations did not warrant setting aside the contract or detailed further scrutiny, and the Court would not substitute its judgment on purchasing 36 rather than 126 aircraft. (¶¶ 22, 23)
- After examining the confidential pricing material, the Court declined to undertake a comparative pricing exercise in this procurement. (¶¶ 24, 25, 26)
- The vendor selected its offset partners under the applicable guidelines. The Court found no substantial material before it establishing commercial favouritism by the Indian Government; disputed press statements did not justify the requested judicial intervention. (¶¶ 30, 32, 33)
- Individual perceptions did not justify a fishing and roving inquiry on the material presented. The conclusions were expressly framed primarily within the Article 32 jurisdiction exercised in these petitions. (¶ 34)
Result
All writ petitions dismissed by the judgment dated 14 December 2018; parties to bear their own costs.