[<<I have said elsewhere that a judgment based on facts which are false, is no judgment in the eye of law. The remedy is to recall the judgment and go for a fresh hearing, possibly by a different bench. The remedy is not a review of the judgment, much less an application for “correction” of the judgment, as is sought to be done by the Union Government. ... ***There is now no doubt that this is a case for recall of the judgment and go for a de novo hearing.*** ... ***The biggest casualty of this entire episode is the credibility of the Supreme Court of India. It seems when the country is going through turbulent times, the Supreme Court also goes through turbulent times.***>> (Excerpted from sl. no. I. below.)
Compare this with: <<While interpretation of a law or analysis of a situation, as given out in a judgement, is open to questioning as a matter of routine, citation of “facts” in a judgement, as the basis of the final conclusion, must be above all controversies. >From that point of view, the subject judgement – shot with a number of flawed assertions (*as have been scanned above*), delivered by the highest court of India - that too by a bench headed by the honourable CJI himself, appears to be only too worrisome. Its implications are too disturbing.>> (Extract from: 'Rafale Controversy: Supreme Court Judgement Amongst Worst Ever?', dtd. Dec. 16 2018, by Sukla Sen at < https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/greenyouth/rafale$2C$20supreme$20court$2C$20worst$20ever$2C$20sukla$20sen%7Csort:date/greenyouth/5-fzbo1AY5o/Q3ok19vqBQAJ >.) <<The €7.87-billion Rafale deal between India and France involved major and unprecedented concessions from the Indian government, with critical provisions for anti-corruption penalties and making payments through an escrow account dropped days before the signing of the inter-governmental agreement (IGA). This has significant political implications for the Narendra Modi government which has claimed that eliminating corruption is a major plank of its agenda for governance and promised action against alleged corruption in defence deals struck during the United Progressive Alliance Government.>> (Excerpted from sl. no. II. below.) <<Addressing a press conference, senior Congress leader Kapil Sibal said Mehrishi was the Finance Secretary at the time of the “unilateral announcement” on purchase of 36 Rafale aircraft at a cost of Rs 58,000 crore in April 2015, and cancellation of the 126 aircraft MMRCA deal in June 2015. “Consequently, you were directly involved in the Rafale deal on both these occasions as Finance Secretary. Not only this, the price negotiations of the 36 Rafale aircraft deal commenced in May 2015. Representatives of the Finance Ministry, i.e. member of the cost accounts service and financial advisors, were part of the Indian negotiation team. Hence, you were also involved in the negotiations of Rafale deal,” the Congress said in a memorandum to the CAG. “In fact, the irregularities, bungling and corruption were happening at the highest level with your direct or indirect complicity and consent. This reflects your direct collaboration in the entire matter. That being so, there is no reason or occasion for your to audit the 36 Rafale aircraft deal as you can neither be a judge in your own cause nor can sit in audit over your own actions to which you were a party,” it said. Sibal said the cardinal principle of law is that “no one can be a judge in his own cause”.>> (Excerpted from sl. no. II. below.) ***While, by now, a number of glaring irregularities, including abrupt spike in price, despite deletion of the provision for technology transfer, and undue and illegitimate interference by the PMO, in vital stages, have come to light and, perhaps, more are in the pipeline, the most important issue, as it appears, remains that the requirement of 126 (14 squadrons) of fighter jets, worked out via the due and arduous process was drastically slashed to only 36 (merely 4 squadrons) by Modi, while announcing the "deal" on the soil of Paris, with Anil Ambani in tow, on April 10 2015, without any whatever input from the user department, let alone the mandatory CCS approval, with even the Defence Minister completely in the dark (ref.: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2udl1EHdZ2s>, 0:18 - 0:26 mins.).*** The issue of the "Chowkidar's" role in the deal is rocking the parliamnet, as expected, even today: < https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/parliament-budget-session-day-8-live-updates/article26234862.ece >. The way the highest court of the land and, also, the CAG have got mired in controversy, in the process, has profoundly disturbing implications. One must visit the original site for the screenshots/facsimiles and the video included the remarkably thoroughgoing analysis by Indira Jaising. Ditto for the fresh Hindu expose at sl. no. II. below.] I/III. https://theleaflet.in/indira-jaising-writes-after-the-hindu-report-on-pmos-parallel-negotiations-in-rafale-deal-now-what-would-we-call-a-supreme-court-judgment-not-based-on-facts/?fbclid=IwAR3xZLkNij-mNVxCE_Re922kGkiaMzgGGkmtKppuybqmdqlBsDjul52iyxw Indira Jaising writes: After The Hindu report on PMO’s ‘parallel negotiations’ in Rafale deal, now what would we call a Supreme Court judgment ‘not based on facts’? But apart from the obvious implications of off-the-record “parallel negotiations” by the PMO, what does this mean for the Supreme Court judgment delivered on December 14, 2018, rejecting several petitions filed for a mandamus directing the CBI to lodge an FIR in relation to the deal? While the Court is entitled take a point of view on law which may be debatable, it is not at liberty to play fast and loose with the facts. We have a right to insist that court proceedings are not manipulated by the Government by presenting half-truths in sealed cover to the court. Indira Jaising INDIRA JAISING|@IJaising | February 9,2019 FROM the eye-popping report published in The Hindu, it is now clear that the PMO was, in fact, in “parallel negotiations” with the French government over the Rafale deal, and that Defence Ministry officials had raised strong objections to this, saying that it had “weakened the position of the MoD and the Indian Negotiating Team seriously”. This note from the defence secretary was dated November 24, 2015. N. Ram @nramind Defence Ministry protested against PMO undermining Rafale negotiations, N. Ram in The Hindu: https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/defence-ministry-protested-against-pmo-undermining-rafale-negotiations/article26207281.ece … 4,111 6:29 AM - Feb 8, 2019 Twitter Ads info and privacy Defence Ministry protested against PMO undermining Rafale negotiations The French side took advantage of parallel parleys by the PMO that weakened Indian team’s position. thehindu.com 3,066 people are talking about this The Hindu report published on February 8, 2019 and written by its former editor-in-chief and publisher, N Ram | Photo credit: The Hindu Subsequently, the Government, via a news agency, has put out the fuller version of the note which indicates that the then Defence Minster, Manohar Parrikar, said this was an “overreaction” by MoD, and “it appears that PMO and French president’s office are monitoring the progress of the issues, which was an outcome of the summit meeting…” This reaction of the Defence Minister came after more than a month of the November 24, 2015 note, and was written on January 11, 2016, after 43 days. It is pertinent to observe here that the then Defence Minister Parrikar had neither falsified, nor contested the content of the defence ministry official’s note, but instead had suggested that the matter should be resolved “in consultation with the Pr Sec to P.M.” [sic] View image on Twitter View image on Twitter ANI ✔ @ANI ANI accesses the then Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar’s reply to MoD dissent note on #Rafale negotiations."It appears PMO and French President office are monitoring the progress of the issue which was an outcome of the summit meeting. Para 5 appears to be an over reaction" 3,524 12:43 PM - Feb 8, 2019 2,363 people are talking about this Twitter Ads info and privacy The Defence Ministry note, along with Defence Minister (Rakhsha Mantri/RM) Manohar Parrikar’s observations dated January 11, 2016, as released by ANI However, the words of the defence ministry officials now seem prophetic in hindsight and perhaps explain why the deal, announced by Prime Minister Narendra Modi himself in France on April 10, 2015, was eventually struck at the escalated price of 7.87 billion euro for 36 Rafale jets and that too without a sovereign guarantee, which was being insisted upon by the defence ministry officials as well as the Indian Negotiating Team. But apart from the obvious implications of off-the-record “parallel negotiations” by the PMO, what does this mean for the Supreme Court judgment delivered on December 14, 2018, rejecting several petitions filed for a mandamus directing the CBI to lodge an FIR in relation to the deal? We already have an appellation by the Government of India, by the mysterious A K Sharma alone (there is no affidavit by the person who created the note in sealed cover, which the Court is stated to have “misunderstood”) calling for a “correction” of the Supreme Court judgment on the ground that there was no then existing report of the CAG on the Rafale deal and that the report will be sent to the CAG in future. This by itself would vitiate the judgment and render it liable to be set aside. For reasons unknown, the application is not being taken up for hearing. We, therefore, do not know whether it was the Union Government that “misled” the Court, or whether the Court “misunderstood” the contents of the sealed cover. Either way, considering that the judgment is based on a mistake of fact of a gross nature, on the question whether the Court ought to look into the pricing, the judgment is no judgment in the eye of law. While the Court is entitled take a point of view on law which may be debatable, it is not at liberty to play fast and loose with the facts. For a Court of law, facts are sacred and not negotiable. I have said elsewhere that a judgment based on facts which are false, is no judgment in the eye of law. The remedy is to recall the judgment and go for a fresh hearing, possibly by a different bench. The remedy is not a review of the judgment, much less an application for “correction” of the judgment, as is sought to be done by the Union Government. This is perhaps the first time in Indian legal history that the Government has told the Court how to rewrite its own judgment, and which para to substitute for which one. Now comes the news, with clear evidence in the form of the defence ministry note, that the procedure for negotiating the deal was not followed. One of the fist issues framed by the Court, was the question whether procedures prescribed for negotiating the deal were followed. With regard to this, the Supreme Court in its December 14, 2018 order said: “We have studied the material carefully. We have also had the benefit of interacting with senior Air Force Officers who answered Court queries in respect of different aspects, including that of the acquisition process and pricing. We are satisfied that there is no occasion to really doubt the process, and even if minor deviations have occurred, that would not result in either setting aside the contract or requiring a detailed scrutiny by the Court. We have been informed that joint exercises have taken place, and that there is a financial advantage to our nation. It cannot be lost sight of, that these are contracts of defence procurement which should be subject to a different degree and depth of judicial review. Broadly, the processes have been followed. The need for the aircrafts is not in doubt. The quality of the aircraft is not in question………”. This clearly indicates that if procedures were followed, there would be no case for entertaining the petition any further. The converse is equally true — that if procedures were not followed, the court would entertain the petition and consider directing the CBI to register an FIR. Failure to follow procedure leads to a presumption that the decision-making process was vitiated by extraneous considerations. Now we have evidence that the procedure was not followed. This information was withheld from the Court. This could only have been a conscious decision, by the authors of the sealed cover, to conceal from the court the fact that the MoD had on record protested about “parallel negotiations” by the PMO. There is now no doubt that this is a case for recall of the judgment and go for a de novo hearing. While the Supreme Court has issued notice for contempt to advocate Prashant Bhushan for commenting on pending court proceedings in a tweet, today we are all pointing out that the Government concealed facts from the Court in the Rafale case, and that too in pending proceedings. This time, it is the Indian National Congress president Rahul Gandhi who is openly saying that it is the Union Government that lied to the court. So, are we all guilty of contempt, or is there a public interest in freedom of speech in matters of national importance? We have a right to insist that court proceedings are not manipulated by the Government by presenting half-truths in sealed cover to the court. The Supreme Court in a recent order directed that notice to be issued to the then interim director of the CBI, M Nageswara Rao, for transferring an investigating officer, despite a court order that he would not be transferred, in the Muzaffarpur shelter-home case. The subversion of justice by the non-disclosure of facts by the Government of India in the Rafale case is far more gross, calling also for contempt of court action to be taken again the Government. The question, however, is against whom? No government officer has signed the contents of the sealed cover; no law officer has signed the application for correction of the judgment. No one lied to court, no one misrepresented the record to the court. In his last speech in Parliament in the Lok Sabha before the forthcoming elections, the PM said that the Rafale deal was legitimised by the Supreme Court of India. Indeed, it was. Will the Court now recall its judgment? The biggest casualty of this entire episode is the credibility of the Supreme Court of India. It seems when the country is going through turbulent times, the Supreme Court also goes through turbulent times. Where does that leave us? While talking to some police officers during the case relating to Alok Verma, the reaction I got was: “There was a time when we knew we could turn to the Supreme Court; now we know we cannot anymore, we will find ourselves surrendering to the Executive, or fighting each other in the manner in which the CBI tried to arrest the Kolkata Police Commissioner”. In the ultimate analysis, if the Supreme Court fails in its role of guardian of the Constitution, we will face mob rule and lawlessness. I am reminded of the definition of “fake news”: it is news not based on facts. What would you call a judgment “not based on facts”? Also read: Best fiction writing in 2018: Award goes to the Supreme Court’s Rafale judgement II/III. https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/government-waived-anti-corruption-clauses-in-rafale-deal/article26231793.ece Government waived anti-corruption clauses in Rafale deal N. Ram FEBRUARY 11, 2019 05:31 IST UPDATED: FEBRUARY 11, 2019 12:59 IST MORE-IN Rafale deal It also overruled Financial Advisers’ recommendation for an escrow account after PMO forced a waiver of sovereign or bank guarantee The €7.87-billion Rafale deal between India and France involved major and unprecedented concessions from the Indian government, with critical provisions for anti-corruption penalties and making payments through an escrow account dropped days before the signing of the inter-governmental agreement (IGA). This has significant political implications for the Narendra Modi government which has claimed that eliminating corruption is a major plank of its agenda for governance and promised action against alleged corruption in defence deals struck during the United Progressive Alliance Government. It is significant that neither this nor other important information published by The Hindu on the “parallel negotiations” conducted by the Prime Minister’s Office and the National Security Adviser seems to have found a place in the material submitted by the government to the Supreme Court of India. Financial Adviser Sudhansu Mohanty’s observations in an official note, in facsimile Financial Adviser Sudhansu Mohanty’s observations in an official note, in facsimile The high-level political intervention meant that standard Defence Procurement Procedure (DPP) clauses on “Penalty for use of Undue Influence, Agents/Agency Commission, and Access to Company accounts” of Dassault Aviation and MBDA France were dropped by the Indian government in the supply protocols. Under the terms of the IGA signed between India and France in Delhi on September 23, 2016, Dassault is the supplier of the Rafale aircraft package while MBDA France is the supplier of the weapons package to the Indian Air Force. Official documents available to The Hindu reveal that the Defence Acquisition Council (DAC) chaired by the then Defence Minister, Manohar Parrikar, met in September 2016, and “ratified and approved” eight changes in the IGA, supply protocols, offset contracts and offset schedules (see Box 1). This was done after the IGA and associated documents had been approved by the Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS), chaired by Prime Minister Modi on August 24, 2016. Box 1: The DAC ratified and approved the following: Revised Article 5 of the IGA. Revised Clause 21 (Arbitration) of the Supply Protocols. Non-inclusion of the Standard DPP Clauses related to 'Penalty for Undue Influence', 'Agents/ Agency Commission' and 'Access to Accounts' in the Supply Protocols. Inclusion of additional Articles 9 to 17 of Offset Contracts to those specified in model Offset Contract of DPP 2013. Revised Article 9 of the Offset Contracts aligned with the xx clause of the Supply Protocols. Revised Article 12 of the Offset Contracts aligned with the Contract. Revised Offset Schedules of DA and MBDA. The most significant among these eight changes, recorded in a note signed by Vice Admiral Ajit Kumar, DCIDS (PP&FD) who was the member-secretary of the DAC, is at sub-para (c). This states: “Non-inclusion of the Standard DPP Clauses related to ‘Penalty for Undue Influence,’ ‘Agents/Agency Commission’ and ‘Access to Company Accounts’ in the Supply Protocols.” It is highly significant that these clauses were dropped by the Indian government from the supply protocols. While the IGA was the overarching agreement between the governments of India and France, the supply protocols were to be executed by Dassault and MBDA, the two private companies. This direct dealing with the commercial suppliers, under cover of an IGA, was highlighted in a detailed note of dissent signed by three members of the Indian Negotiating Team — M.P. Singh, Adviser (Cost), A.R. Sule, Financial Manager (Air), and Rajeev Verma, Joint Secretary and Acquisitions Manager (Air). The document, which is available to The Hindu, reveals that these three members took a strong stand against what was being rammed through. On the direct dealing with the two companies, they noted: “Notwithstanding the fact that the procurement is on Government-to-Government basis, the IGA involves ‘Transfer of Rights and Obligations’ relating to supplies of equipment and related industrial services by French Government to the French Industrial Suppliers, and the payment is also being made to the French Industrial Suppliers and not to the French Government; therefore, it is not advisable to sacrifice the basic requirement of financial prudence.” Sections on penalties The Rafale deal was signed between India and France under the terms of DPP-2013. The Standard Clauses in Contract are mentioned in Enclosure 8 of DPP-2013. This has sections on penalties for the use of undue influence, an integrity pact, agents/agency commission and Access to book of accounts. Paragraph 37 of Request for Proposal (RFP) in DPP-2013 states that “the Standard Contract Document at Chapter V of DPP2013 [bit.ly/DPP-2013] indicates the general conditions of contract that would be the guideline for all acquisitions.” Despite the DPP stating explicitly that the Standard Contract Document “would be the guideline for all acquisitions”, the Indian government chose to remove these clauses from the supply protocols with the two private defence suppliers. This assumes particular importance as the government also chose to do away with a sovereign or bank guarantee from France and settled for a letter of comfort, which is not legally binding, from the French Prime Minister. ALSO READ The NDA government decided to buy 36 Rafale fighter jets from Dasault Aviation in flyaway condition. Modi’s decision to buy 36 Rafales shot the price of each jet up by 41% The letter of comfort issued by the French Prime Minister on September 8, 2016 (put out by ANI) states that “assuming that Dassault Aviation or MBDA France meet difficulties in execution of their respective supply protocols and would have to reimburse all or part of the intermediary payment to Government of the Republic of India, the Government of the French Republic will take appropriate measures so as to make sure that said payments or reimbursements will be made at the earliest.” Govt. intervention This letter of comfort came after another last-minute intervention by the Indian government in September, when the Cabinet Committee on Security chaired by the Prime Minister issued a corrigendum to the note forwarded by the Defence Ministry for the CCS, doing away with the requirement for an escrow account operated by the French government to make payments to the two companies. This proposal to amend the IGA, which had been approved by the CCS on August 24, 2016, was moved by Smita Nagaraj, Director General Acquisition, in the Defence Ministry. Safeguards The proposal, which states that “this issues under the direction of Raksha Mantri,” asked the CCS to issue a corrigendum to the minutes, amending Para 50(b) of the note giving approval to the IGA. It reads: “Raksha Mantri has directed that attention of Secretariat is drawn to the fact that in the context of the proposal contained in Para 50(b) of the CCS Note, stated that in the event of payment into escrow account is not found feasible, MOD shall work out alternative safeguards in consultation with the French Government, in which an assurance will be obtained from the French Government to provide effective oversight of utilization of payments released to the French industrial suppliers.” The amended Para 50(b) of the CCS Note approving the IGA [see Box 2] did away with the need for ensuring that the payments made by the Indian government were done through an escrow account operated by the French government. The escrow account was a measure of financial prudence: the payments would be released by the French government to Dassault and MBDA with the concurrence of the Indian government. Government waived anti-corruption clauses in Rafale deal The proposal to have an escrow account operated by the French Government was recommended by Sudhansu Mohanty, Financial Adviser (DS) on January 14, 2016. It was in Note-263, which begins with this qualification, “I wish I had sufficient time to go through the entire file and mull over the various issues raised. However, in view of the fact that the file has to be submitted to RM immediately, I would like to make the following quick observations from the Finance point of view.” Important observation One of Mr. Mohanty’s important observations was: “In the absence of a sovereign/bank guarantee, in a case like this where an IGA is to be signed, it would be prudent to involve the French Govt. as far as releases are concerned. This possibly could be done through an Escrow account or a variant of the same where the money released by the buyer (Govt. of India) is paid to the Escrow account held under the charge of French Govt. to make further payments to the firm as per terms & conditions agreed to by the Indian and French Govt. through IGA. This would make French Govt. morally and materially responsible for the procurement so proposed. Since they are one of the parties to the IGA and also jointly and severally responsible for the execution of the supply protocol, they should not be having any reservation about it.” Evidently, the French government did. Mr. Mohanty’s note, it is now known, came after the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) and National Security Adviser Ajit Doval chose to waive the sovereign or bank guarantee from France. As reported by The Hindu on February 8, 2019, Defence Ministry officials had objected to the “parallel negotiations” being conducted by the PMO, which was “undermining the process of formal negotiation with the French side… may be detrimental to our interests as the French side may take advantage of same by interpreting such discussions to their benefit and weakening the position taken by the Indian Negotiating Team. This has precisely happened in this case.” The Defence Ministry note, which was dated November 24, 2015, cited as “a glaring example” how the parallel negotiations had undercut “the position taken by MoD and conveyed to Indian Negotiating Team that the commercial offer should be preferably backed by Sovereign/Government Guarantee or otherwise by Bank Guarantees.” Contrary positions Another example cited in the note was the contrary positions taken on the arbitration arrangement. ALSO READ Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar exchanges documents with his French counterpart Jean-Yves Le Drian after signing an MoU on the purchase of 36 Rafale fighter aircraft in the presence of French President Francois Hollande and Prime Minister Narendra Modi at Hyderabad House in New Delhi on January 25, 2016. Defence Ministry protested against PMO undermining Rafale negotiations The then Defence Secretary, G. Mohan Kumar, who now says “there were no parallel negotiations” and that the Rafale deal was negotiated in the “most transparent way”, had endorsed the protest note in his own hand on November 24, 2015: “RM may pl. see. It is desirable that such discussions by avoided by the PMO as it undermines our negotiating position seriously.” The need for a sovereign or a bank guarantee was also highlighted by the Ministry of Law and Justice in its communications to the Defence Ministry, documents available to The Hindu show. Active push As for the part played by Mr. Parrikar in the Rafale deal, what has been established is this. From a stance of being non-committal, as evidenced by his hand-written notation of January 11, 2016, he shifted later that year to actively pushing for the changes, giving the financial experts little time to study the proposals. He chaired the September 2016 meeting of the Defence Acquisition Council that “ratified and approved” the eight changes, including the decision to drop the provision of penalties for corruption in the supply protocols with the private companies. In his official capacity, he also directed the issue of a proposal that led to doing away with the provision for an escrow account as a financial safeguard. III. https://indianexpress.com/article/india/rafale-deal-audit-report-rajiv-mehrishi-conflict-of-interest-cag-must-recuse-says-congress-5577858/ Rafale deal: Conflict of interest, CAG must recuse, says Congress Saying that the CAG may table its report in Parliament on Monday, the Congress accused Mehrishi of “attempting to help the government by giving it a clean chit certificate”. By Express News Service |New Delhi | Updated: February 11, 2019 6:45:03 am Supreme Court judgment on Rafale deal diminished judiciary’s credibility: Arun Shourie rafale deal, rafale controversy, rafale fighter jets, rafale audit report, rajiv mehrishi, rafale deal, congress mehrishi, rafale report, budget session, indian express “We are watching over-enthusiastic officials,” senior Congress leader Kapil Sibal said. IN A fresh offensive on the Rafale fighter jet deal, the Congress on Sunday asked Comptroller and Auditor General of India Rajiv Mehrishi to “recuse” himself from auditing the deal, citing “conflict of interest” and “gross impropriety”. Saying that the CAG may table its report in Parliament on Monday, the Congress accused Mehrishi of “attempting to help the government by giving it a clean chit certificate”. Addressing a press conference, senior Congress leader Kapil Sibal said Mehrishi was the Finance Secretary at the time of the “unilateral announcement” on purchase of 36 Rafale aircraft at a cost of Rs 58,000 crore in April 2015, and cancellation of the 126 aircraft MMRCA deal in June 2015. “Consequently, you were directly involved in the Rafale deal on both these occasions as Finance Secretary. Not only this, the price negotiations of the 36 Rafale aircraft deal commenced in May 2015. Representatives of the Finance Ministry, i.e. member of the cost accounts service and financial advisors, were part of the Indian negotiation team. Hence, you were also involved in the negotiations of Rafale deal,” the Congress said in a memorandum to the CAG. “In fact, the irregularities, bungling and corruption were happening at the highest level with your direct or indirect complicity and consent. This reflects your direct collaboration in the entire matter. That being so, there is no reason or occasion for your to audit the 36 Rafale aircraft deal as you can neither be a judge in your own cause nor can sit in audit over your own actions to which you were a party,” it said. Sibal said the cardinal principle of law is that “no one can be a judge in his own cause”. “Under the Defence Procurement Procedure as also the Government of India (Transaction of Business) Rules, Ministry of Finance and the then Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS) are the appropriate authorities for financial sanction and approval of the defence deals… It is an act of gross impropriety for you to deal with the audit of the 36 Rafale aircraft deal on account of patent conflict of interest writ large. You are constitutionally, legally and morally disentitled to either conduct an audit or to present a report before the PAC and Parliament. We urge upon you to recuse yourself and publicly accept the gross impropriety committed by you in initiating the audit of the 36 Rafale aircraft deal,” the party said. “We understand that (in) the fag end of this government’s tenure, you, as CAG, are attempting to help the government by giving it a clean chit certificate through a report likely to be tabled in Parliament,” it said. Rafale: 'PM facilitated loot,' says Rahul on anti-graft clause waiver charge “One thing the officials should also understand. Elections will come and elections will go. Sometimes, we will be in the Opposition; sometimes, we will be in power. There are some officials who may be very over-enthusiastic, who would like to show the Prime Minister that they are very loyal and that we will be with you despite having a conflict of interest… We are watching such people. And he is not alone, there are many others like him… They should understand that the country, the Constitution and the law are bigger than them. No one will have any objection if a fair inquiry is conducted… but if inquiries are held and decisions are taken in such a fashion, then the result would not just be bad for democracy, but there could be personal losses as well,” said Sibal. Asked if this was a threat to officials, he said: “We are saying that we are watching what is happening. Who are we to say anything, but we are watching. It Is not (a threat), we are just watching what is happening. We are nobody. Only the government can threaten… We have no power to threaten anybody, nor do we intend to or wish to. We can certainly note it.” Meanwhile, BJP spokesperson G V L Narasimha Rao said the attack on the CAG showed the Congress’s desperation. -- Peace Is Doable -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Green Youth Movement" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to greenyouth+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send an email to greenyouth@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/greenyouth. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
