india

Updated: Nov 15, 2019 02:14 IST

The Supreme Court accepted on Thursday that it had misunderstood the government’s sealed-cover report on the procedure followed to share price details with the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG) because of which an “error” crept into its 2018 verdict on the Rafale jet fighter deal.

A bench led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Ranjan Gogoi allowed an application filed by the government seeking correction of the error. As the court made changes, it refused to delve into the petitioners’ argument that the government had relied on “patently false documents.”

“..it was canvased before us that reliance had been placed by the Government on patently false documents. One of the aspects is the same as has been dealt with by our order passed today on the application for correction and, thus, does not call for any further discussion,” the bench said.

In its 2018 judgment, the top court had noted that the pricing details had been shared with the CAG, and the report of the government auditor had been examined by the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) of Parliament. This was mentioned in paragraph 25 of the verdict. After the SC verdict, Congress leader Mallikarjun Kharge, who chairs the PAC, had said no such report had come to him. Petitioners against the verdict too said the government had misled the court.

But a day after the verdict, the government filed an application pointing to the “error.

The confidential note in the relevant portions read as: “The Government has already shared the pricing details with the CAG. The report of the CAG is examined by the PAC. Only a redacted version of the report is placed before the Parliament and in public domain.”

The court had recorded it in its judgement as: “The pricing details have, however, been shared with the Comptroller and Auditor General (hereinafter referred to as “CAG”), and the report of the CAG has been examined by the Public Accounts Committee (hereafter referred to as “PAC”). Only a redacted portion of the report was placed before the Parliament and is in public domain.”

The Centre said the first sentence referred to the sharing of the price details with the CAG. But the second sentence qua the PAC referred to the process and not what had already transpired. In the judgment, this portion had been interpreted as if it had already been so done.

Accepting the prayer, the court amended paragraph 25. The corrected paragraph now reads as: “The Government has already shared the pricing details with the CAG. The report of the CAG is examined by the PAC in the usual course of business. Only a redacted version of the report is placed before the Parliament and in public domain.”