 Hello and welcome to NewsClick. I am Paranjoy Gohar Thakurtha and with me here in the studio I have Senior Advocate of the Supreme Court of India, Dinesh Divedi. Thank you Dineshi for coming here. We are going to discuss what are the options before the Supreme Court of India after its judgment of the 14th of December and the government's application, the union government's application to change, modify, alter that judgment. And what are the implications for the entire controversy surrounding the purchase of Rafale fighter aircraft? Dineshi, these three judges, Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gokoyi, Justice SK Call, Justice K.M. Joseph, gave a judgment. And in a small part of the judgment, we read and hear about it. And in this, what they said, all of them were absolutely shocked. In their conclusion, they wrote that we find no reason for any intervention by this court on the sensitive issue of purchase of 36 defence aircraft by the Indian government. And now, after that, the government has issued an application to amend it. On the pricing issue, the Supreme Court has stated, the pricing details have been shared by the controller and auditor general of India. And the report of the CAG has been examined by the public accounts committee and only a redacted portion of this report was placed before parliament and is in the public domain. And the Chief of the Air Staff is stated to have communicated his reservation regarding the disclosure of the pricing details, including the details pertaining to the weaponry, etc. Because if all of this information is spread, then this is bad for the national security. Then Rahul Gandhi made a media conference. And he said that the CAG's report has not come yet. And this CAG's report, when the public accounts committee, which is the Chief of the Air Staff, has not come yet, then the government gave an application. He said, there is something wrong in this. This is not true. And he wrote that where the government has already shared, it should be in the past tense, it will be shared. Instead of this, it should have been. So everyone will understand how is this possible? And after this, everyone feels that why the Supreme Court has given such a judgment. And it seems that there is a very serious issue behind this, that a statement was given by the government in a sealed cover. And the government himself said, these statements appear to have been based on a note submitted by the Union of India along with the pricing details into sealed covers. And these sealed covers were submitted to this Honourable Court in compliance with the order dated 31st October 2018, which had directed etc. This is a very serious issue and you are a lawyer, please explain to people in a simple language what the meaning of this judgment and the application of the government is and how to proceed from here. As you said, this statement is in the judgment. If you look at it, then the nature of that statement is very categorical and clear. There is no reflection of any kind of doubt on it. Therefore, it is obvious that where did this question come from? Now, if we look at it in this context of the petition, then there is no pleading in the petition regarding this. There is no pleading from the government regarding this. In the name of pleading, there is only a note in the confidential sealed cover. And this note? No one has seen it. Is there a sign of someone or not? No, we are told that it is unsigned. That is what we have read in lots of places. So it is not verified, it is not signed. There is only a statement in the name of pleading in which the judges have relied. Now, if a judge gives a clear categorical statement like this in his judgment, then it is obvious that it is based on something. And there is only a note because there is no pleading. So this is a very reasonable assumption that the judges have relied on the same note and come to this part of the judgment. What is the application of the government? I will also come to that. And there is no judge? You are right that the modification of the government is a statement. This thing is impliedly admitted. Now the question is that if this statement has come from that note, then obviously the government has mislead it. If it has come from that note. Because it is a serious charge. But we don't know that. No, I am just inferring. So one reasonable inference is that it has come from that note. And if it has come from that note, then it means that the government has mislead it. Now what will be the second inference? Which is really dreadful. If the government has not mislead it, there is no pleading. There is no verified on oath. There are no arguments related to that. So this means that if the government has mislead it, then the judges themselves have created it. Which is a dreadful thing. No, there are three judges. This is why I am saying this. So the second aspect is that I think I would be the last one to believe that. What is my possibility? This is the first part of the mislead. Now when the press conference took place, I think that the government had a panic reaction. Because maybe they felt that there would be a privileged issue. Then there would be another exposure. And if the privileged issue arose, then the statement of fact was admitted. Then there could be a contempt draw. So the question is that what did they do now? They tried to take out the third course. Which we say that the government tried to be too clever by half. You have moved a modification application, but you are noting that there is only inference from this statement. Now if you... This is the bleeding that is coming now in their modification. That the judges misread it, misinterpret it. I don't understand this. And can you speak English? I don't understand this. I don't speak English because I am also very weak in grammar. That's why I don't speak English. Because we learn to speak English, to read, without learning English. So that's why practice is over. What is the future? What is the past? And what is the present? The problem is that the modification admits that inference is based on the note. So that's the problem. Now if we are talking about misreading, as I was saying, it is impossible to imagine that three learned judges, three intelligent, smart judges, of the highest court, of India, of the highest court, three educated judges. How did a simple sentence misread it? I don't understand this. That is impossible to imagine. If there was a single judge bench, you would have doubted that a judge misreaded it. Two misreaded it, and the third misreaded it. This is impossible for me to imagine. It is impossible. And these are facts. Once CAG sent a report, and this report was sent in Sanskrit. But everyone knows it. After that, the Public Accounts Committee, everyone knows this. So I am actually very astonished and very surprised. Therefore, I am pointing this out to you. If you look at it, this statement of the government, in this modification application, clearly implies directly, indirectly, an aspersion is cast on the Supreme Court, that three judges are not very intelligent, who are not able to understand a simple grammar, who are not able to understand a simple sentence. I mean, according to me... Do you want to say that the Indian government presented that note? It is absurd. It really queers the entire scene. And are you lying? So if we are not able to believe that three judges can misinterpret it, misread it, a simple sentence, statement in the note. So, for me, to impute a lack of intelligence to the Supreme Court or to put a concoction on the Supreme Court is unimaginable. Sir, you are a senior advocate. Now look, what is likely to happen for you? The petitioners, in this, Mr. Shoriji, Mr. Yashwant Sinha, Mr. Rishan Bhushan, one review petition, and all the points you are saying, all those review petitions are written. The question is, that today the Supreme Court of India has the highest priority. What can be... What happened? What are the options before the Supreme Court? I think the options are very limited. And now, the Supreme Court will have to understand the honorable judges that whether they will accept the charge of misreading or not accepting then they will have to say that you mislead. There is no other option. That means, there are only two options in front of the Supreme Court. Both are bad. The first option is that you mislead us. The second option is to accept a far-fetched argument. And say that you misread it. But then that will create a lot of embarrassment. Then that will lead to lots of embarrassment and lots of face-saving problems. Mr. Dinesh, do you think this matter is going to be resolved soon or will it take time? It will take some time because as far as I understand if the court adopts the rational procedure then at least that part of the statement that has been submitted in the confidential report which is saying that you have misconstrued that part will have to be shown to the other side. It will have to be shown to the petitioners. Otherwise what will happen? The note will not remain open. That portion which is seeking clarification will have to be disclosed. Because the other side will have to give an opportunity. Mr. Dinesh, even today the CAG report was redacted and then the BSE was given. This has never happened in the history of India. If CAG presents a report once then all of you should take their opinion from the defence ministry. And then when the report is final when the final report is done that is a public talk. It is presented to parliament. So how is this possible that CAG report can be redacted? But the issue when we go there we don't understand that as we have heard from the newspapers and media is that the normal of the redacted report but sometimes the redacted reports have been submitted regarding some sensitive issues. So now if the redacted report is final whether or not it is final No, it is not, sir. I don't know. Actually I am not conscious of that. I spoke to many people who were former CAG who were with the Indian Party who were the political party who were with the Indian Party who gave reports of the redacted report they didn't. If they say that there is no redacted and there is no instance then your point is right that it cannot be like this. So until today, we are not telling that. I am saying this. So since I do not have confirmed factors this way or that way then I will not positively be able I have a question for you about politics. Sure, sure. I am very interested in it. In Sanskrit, Raksha Mantri Nehramalaseeta Raman said that after this Bofors Gautala, Rajiv Gandhi, Junao Har Ganesh, 1989. This time, Mr. Narendra Modi and Mr. Rafel Muddaki won the 2019 Lok Sabha Juna. This is my last question for you. I think this is the best answer we can get from the government. The Bofors Gautala has been around for so many years. The government has been around for so many years. It may be the end of the day, but we don't know the outcome. But the issue is that these people say that the corruption issue is not going well based on Rafaal. They think this is very important. We are reading in the newspaper every day that Mr. Muddaki himself is saying that we are not guilty. Before that, did you say that you would not let us eat? I am saying that if this has not cut much ice amongst the people, why are you giving explanations in every corner of India? Why? You are afraid that it will have an impact on the cities. Maybe they will trickle down and you are trying to prevent it. But you are not winning or losing because of any issue. You are losing because of an overall perception. The question is where is the perception based on the government? This is a matter of view. The issue of farmers, the issue of jobs, the issue of corruption, all of these will have an impact on the whole. There will be no issue related to the entire country. But it has an impact because the Prime Minister himself is explaining to the world that it has an impact. Thank you, Mr. Minesh. We will tell you the time. There are a few months left. The issue of corruption will really be affected by this. Will a common voter or a common man be affected? But this story... If you allow me to say one thing, what you said has an impact on Mr. Kharkis' press conference that he has immediately applied for a modification. I understand this very well. I understand that he is a very big and educated lawyer. This was a very panic reaction. And he made a mistake in that panic reaction. He should not have filed a lawsuit. I have my own opinion. I never filed a lawsuit. It should not have happened. Because the Supreme Court is putting this in a very odd situation. So today, time will tell what will happen. But the options that are before the Supreme Court... Getting limited. Are limited. And both of them will show the working of the highest score of the land in not so good light. In fact, the modification application does reflect that. Therefore, the government has to redact. Thank you once again, Dinesh Ji, for coming to this interview. Thank you so much. Thank you very much. He explained in simple language what are the options for the Supreme Court of India as far as the referral matter is concerned. And both those options will not throw this country, this country's government and this country's apex court in good light. Thank you very much for being with us on this program. And keep watching Newscake.