SC Interacts With IAF Officials During High Voltage Rafale Hearing

As the hearing in connection with the controversial Rafale deal continued post lunch, Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi interacted with Air Marshal V R Chaudhari and two other officers from Indian Air Force as to the requirements of the Airforce.“What has been the latest induction in the IAF in terms of combat aircraft?”, he asked.When the Air Marshall cited the relevant type, the Chief Justice inquired if the manufacture of the same is ongoing by HAL.Replying in the affirmative, the officer stated that the process is carried out in Nasik and that the delivery is received every year.If there are any other aircrafts being manufactured in India, the Chief Justice wanted to know. The Light Combat Aircraft which is being made in Bangalore and is to be inducted in the IAF, he was informed.When Chief Justice Gogoi asked as what generation, the third or the fourth, the Air Marshall would describe these aircraft, he was told that they could be called “3.5-4th generation”“So your requirement is of the fifth generation, if not the sixth?”, quizzed the Chief Justice. “We would say the technology is very niche in the fifth generation”, was the officer’s reply."Air Marshall can now leave. This is a different kind of war room and you all can go to your war rooms. Thank You", CJI said to the officers at the end of the short interaction.During the first session Chief Justice has asked if anyone from the IAF was present in court. When the AG indicated the secretary of the defence ministry, the Chief Justice declined, saying the court wished to quiz an officer of the IAF as to the requirements of the air force and no one from the ministry.AG Continues his submissionsThereupon, Attorney General K. K. Venugopal resumed his submissions. He repeated that all the steps in procurement procedure were duly complied with and the Defence Acquisition Council (DAC) had approved of the purchase of the 36 Rafale jets.“The (earlier RPF of 2007) was withdrawn in June (2015) So How did the PM give a statement in April (2015) that 36 Rafale jets would be procured from France in a flyaway state?”, asked Justice K. M. Joseph.As the AG attempted to respond, the CJI pointed out from the government’s written note that the process for withdrawal was put into motion in March, 2015 only, to be closed in June.When Justice Joseph indicated that 95% negotiations in respect of the earlier RPF have been claimed to be completed in early 2015 by the Dassault CEO, Mr. Venugopal advanced,“That entire scheme was different- 18 jets were to be received in a flyaway condition while 108 were to be made in india. We needed a high level of sophistication in the manufacturing. HAL was to be vehicle for the manufacture. It not only Quoted a 2.7 times higher time-slot, it was also unable to ensure that it would achieve the competency requirement”“At the stage when the decision was taken, we had to have a manufacturer who could produce. It was a management decision taken after a consideration of the availability of technology and technicians”, he continued.AG's Reply To Prashant Bhushan's submissionsEarlier in the day, Advocate Prashant Bhushan had touted as bogus the government’s stand that it has no role in the selection of the Indian Offset Partner as it is a matter between private parties and the time for a disclosure in this behalf by Dassault has not yet arrived.He had pointed out the relevant portion of the Offset Guidelines of the Defence Procurement Procedure of 2013 which require all proposals for offset contracts to be processed in the defence ministry and be approved by the defence minister.“Soon after initiating new deal, in August 2015, to ensure deniability, the GOI quietly amended the defence procurement policy as to offset contracts and that too with retrospective effect. But they forgot that there are other clauses in the offset guidelines which were not amended”, he had claimed.He drew the bench’s attention to the amended Paragraph 8.2 of Appendix D to Chapter 1 of the DPP which now allows the vendor to furnish details of the IOP, including its eligibility, even at the delayed stage of seeking offset credits or one year prior to discharge of offset obligations.“This has provided the government with the chance to say that they do not know who dassault’s partner is. So can Dassault execute the contract and get performance out of it without the defence ministry knowing?”, Mr. Bhushan had asked.Responding to it, the AG advanced, “in September this year, because this was being raised as a political issue, it became necessary for the government of India to issue the clarification- that it has no role in the choice of the IOP which is the commercial decision of the original equipment manufacturer”He also submitted that as per the offset clause of the government, it is not necessary that the equipment manufactured by the IOP would be of the same aircraft which is being procured, the only purpose of the clause being that up-to 50% of the benefit of the deal accrues...

SC Interacts With IAF Officials During High Voltage Rafale Hearing

MEHAL JAIN

Tags