Summary
The Supreme Court dismissed reviews of its Rafale procurement judgment, emphasizing the limited scope of review and Article 32 scrutiny. It corrected the earlier description of the CAG/PAC process, declined perjury proceedings and closed the connected contempt matter after an unconditional apology, with a caution. Joseph J concurred separately, preserving lawful action on the complaint subject to prior statutory approval.
Issues
- Whether the procurement judgment disclosed grounds for review or prosecution for false evidence.
- Whether the description of the CAG/PAC process required correction.
- How the connected contempt proceedings should be disposed of.
Provisions considered
- Section 17A, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988In his separate concurrence, Joseph J treated prior approval as a bar to inquiry or investigation on the complaint and preserved action in accordance with law after obtaining that approval. (¶¶ Joseph J: 83, Joseph J: 84, Joseph J: 85, Joseph J: 86)
- Order XLVII, Supreme Court Rules, 2013The separate concurrence examined the limits of review, including patent error rather than rehearing of the original dispute. (¶¶ Joseph J: 18, Joseph J: 19, Joseph J: 39, Joseph J: 40, Joseph J: 44)
Held
- The Court found no ground to reopen the decision through review. Differing opinions within the procurement process did not require the Court to reassess each technical decision as an appellate authority; its original scrutiny was confined by Article 32. (¶¶ Kaul J: 11, Kaul J: 12, Kaul J: 13, Kaul J: 16, Kaul J: 17, Kaul J: 19, Kaul J: 20, Kaul J: 21, Kaul J: 22, Kaul J: 25)
- The earlier account of completed PAC scrutiny arose from misunderstanding a note describing the usual process. The passage was corrected, but it had not supplied the rationale for the original conclusion. (¶¶ Kaul J: 2, Kaul J: 3, Kaul J: 4, Kaul J: 5, Kaul J: 6, Kaul J: 7)
- No ground was made out to initiate prosecution under section 340 of the Criminal Procedure Code. (¶ Kaul J: 24)
- Rahul Gandhi had wrongly attributed findings to the Court. In view of his subsequent unconditional apology, the contempt proceedings were closed with a caution to be more careful. (¶¶ Kaul J: 26, Kaul J: 29, Kaul J: 31, Kaul J: 32, Kaul J: 33)
- Joseph J distinguished investigation from limited judicial review. His concurrence rejected relief in view of section 17A, while stating that the earlier judgment would not obstruct lawful action on the complaint subject to obtaining prior approval. (¶¶ Joseph J: 63, Joseph J: 64, Joseph J: 67, Joseph J: 73, Joseph J: 81, Joseph J: 82, Joseph J: 83, Joseph J: 84, Joseph J: 85, Joseph J: 86, Joseph J: 87)
Result
Reviews dismissed; the CAG/PAC passage was corrected and the section 340 application rejected. Connected contempt proceedings were closed after the unconditional apology, with a caution. Joseph J concurred separately and stated that the earlier judgment would not prevent lawful action on the complaint subject to prior approval under section 17A. Remaining applications were disposed of.