 Hello and welcome to NewsClick. We are going to discuss what has been the recent discussions in the Supreme Court. The Attorney General Mr. Venugopal saying that whatever the Hindu, the caravan and other media have carried are essentially documents which have been stolen from the government, violation of the official secrets act and has actually threatened the news organizations also with proceeding against them. So, what does it mean when an attorney general threatens media organizations of proceeding under the official secrets act? Essentially saying that if you have access to the official documents irrespective of how they have come to you, you can be proceeded against. Isn't this a chilling effect of the press? And has it been used in this form? We had the Beaufort case, the 2G case, a lot of the documents which are placed, you know, they were essentially... Coming to the best of my knowledge, what the Attorney General said on Wednesday the 6th of March in the Supreme Court, before a bench which was headed by the Chief Justice of India, Ranjan Goghoy and he was accompanied by Justice K.M. Joseph and Justice Kall. In my opinion, it's unprecedented. And to my mind, I would condemn what the Attorney General has said in the strongest possible language. What he has essentially said is held out and what did he say? He said the government is considering criminal action against those who publish these stolen documents, which may have been stolen by serving officers or retired officers. Now wait. At no point of time, anywhere, did he say that the documents are false. In fact, that verifies the documents are right. If you take the other side of it, he has officially now verified the authenticity of the documents that have been published. That's one part of it. What are the implications of this? If indeed, what has been published by newspapers like the Hindu, Newsclake, Raviniar, Caravan, among others, would indicate, and this is the implication, one, because that the internal report of the negotiating team with 7 members that there was dissension. Four to three divisions. That's correct. That there were officials in the defense ministry that they did believe that the prime minister's office had intervened in the deal and thereby, according to this minority of members in that negotiating team, undermined or compromised the negotiating position. Point number two, that it was indeed suggested that by the prime minister's office that the sovereign guarantees and the bank guarantee, these requirements be done away with. And this happened before the cabinet committee on security actually met. And not only that, and it was also the question of the anti-corruption clause. And finally, and this is not the least, this whole issue of the pricing. Now, why did this whole matter come up? Because petitioners Prashant Bhushan, Yashwant Sena, Arun Shauri, they said that Supreme Court, your judgment of December contains factual errors, legal errors. And Mr. Prashant Bhushan said that the Supreme Court should order a probe by the Central Bureau of Investigation. Effectively, that means he's asking the Supreme Court to review its own judgment. Yes. In fact, that's the other part of it, which I wanted to come later. That the review petition has been actually filed by the government. Saying that the judgment, though they're not calling it a review petition. They're not calling it a review petition. But they have said change the language of the judgment. Correct. But if the language of the judgment is with respect to a substantive issue of fact. Yes. Then it's effectively tantamount to a review petition. Correcting grammar. Correct. Correct. Clarifying the points. Yes, and the clarification of the grammar is the CAG report in the judgment claimed that it had already been submitted to the parliament. It had redacted the price. Both of these things had not happened when the judgment had taken place. It has happened subsequently. So effectively, they wanted a change of grammar according to the government's petition. And Prashant and others have argued in the court that this was misleading the court and therefore there should be a review of the judgment. But I'm leaving that part out for the time being. I want you to, as I said, you have been in the media. You should not get into the case itself right now. This is a threat being held out in the press. And just hold on. You also said that this is unprecedented. Okay. Use threats of the official secret side against the media. And remember this official secret act was when? 1926. This is a colonial act. And what is more? What the attorney general suggested that the concerned publications would be asked to disclose their source of information. Now to that, Mr. Enram, who authored these articles, some of these articles, he was very, very categorical. He says under no circumstances as a self-respecting journalist would he disclose the source. And the most important point is, I repeat this point, they're not questioning the authenticity of the documents, but who leaked the document. It's a classic case of trying to shoot the messenger. The other part of it is the implicit threat held out by that attorney general that if they say a certain set of things that respond to some of these things in the court, the judges, then they would be adding fuel to the opposition fire. So implicitly this is an attempt to censor the judges. Again, to my opinion, I cannot think of such a statement being made in open court. I cannot, I mean maybe somebody is better informed than I am. I'll read out the exact quote of what the attorney general of India, Mr. KK Venugopal, said. I quote him, every single sentence from you, meaning the judges, will be used by the opposition for destabilizing the government. Would your lordships want to be party to this? Now, the attorney general of India is a political appointee. When a government demits its office, so does the attorney general give it. He's, after all, he's a senior most law officer of the government of India. There have been occasions when the attorney general has actually addressed parliament. Well, let me correct you a little technically on this. He is a constitutional authority and also an officer of the court. He actually owes allegiance to the constitution, to the law and he is in that sense not a government servant in the sense that we are talking about. In fact, he doesn't come under the government. He is the top most, the senior most law officer. Of the country. Of the country. Not of the government. All right. Okay. The clarification is important. But what is important is when the attorney general urges the Supreme Court of India not to be allegedly party to a move to help the opposition. I mean, look, the job of the opposition is to oppose the government. Now, here is the issue to be that here is the court being told by the attorney general that they don't really know English. They don't have proper grammar, understanding of English grammar. And then they're also being told that they really don't know how to speak properly and therefore they should really censor themselves because otherwise they are going to help the opposition. Now, it's also really questioning the abilities or the good faith of the judges. This is also unprecedented for an attorney general. I would agree with you there and we have to wait and watch what happens when the matter is heard again in open court on the 14th, 14th of March, exactly a week from the time that we are talking. Now, there was another sort of a side show. There was the Ahmaadmi Party member of parliament, Sanjay Singh. He, the Chief Justice told his lawyer, Sanjay Hegde in the review petition. That his review petition could not be heard. Why? Because he had made allegedly derogatory remarks against the Supreme Court and his judges in not only in the connection with the Rafael's case, but also in the Alok Varma matter. Now, you know, whereas the judges did not clarify what were these allegations that they took unhappy, I mean that they were unhappy about. I am, what this entire episode has shown is that contrary to what the government would have liked and what the Narendra Modi government would have liked, the Rafael's scandal, the Rafael's story is far from over and is not going to go away in a hurry. There is another issue. Both the review petitions, if you will, the governments, correcting grammar, which is not being called a review petition and the petitioners in this case, Prashant Dushan and Eshwant Sinha and Anishore, the substantive issue is not what the attorney general is discussing. Attorney general is not discussing what should the petition, should the revision stand or not. He is saying the documents on the basis of which some of these issues are being raised have been procured illegally, but as some of the judges have raised, how does it change the review petition? Precisely. That's the legal point, which is completely silent. Absolutely. So, we have to wait till the 14th of March to get greater clarity on the issue that let's assume even if the documents have been stolen, the authenticity of the documents have not been questioned. Therefore, can they be admitted as evidence in a criminal investigation? That is the point that will... Or forget the criminal investigation. Also, it's a simple issue of revision of the judgment, which is a referral case. So, the Supreme Court reviews its own judgment. In view of the evidence now being presented and in light of the fact that probably in the sealed cover, what they got, since we don't know what the sealed cover contains, may not have had the right facts or at least the right grammar. Correct. And that is indeed the big question. And I think now, in a sense, after Pulwama, after all that has happened, India-Pakistan conflagration, suddenly the Rafale scam appears to have got a new life. I mean, we heard Rahul Gandhi saying now the investigation should be at the prime minister himself. So, let's see. I think we have a long hot summer ahead of us in the run-up to the elections. And the big question is what the before story became for Rahul Gandhi's father. The question is, will Rafale become as important in the campaign of those who are opposed to Narendra Modi in the coming weeks and months? Thank you very much. Thank you very much for watching NewsClick. Do keep watching us in our other episodes.