Live: SC has opened a huge door into probe of Rafale scam, tweets Rahul Gandhi
All eyes are on the Supreme Court, which is set to pronounce crucial verdicts in three cases - review petitions in women's entry in Sabarimala temple, Rafale deal, and contempt of court plea filed against Congress leader Rahul Gandhi - on Thursday.
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Thursday delivered its verdict in three crucial cases-- review petitions challenging entry of women of all age groups in the Sabarimala temple, Rafale deal and the contempt of court plea filed against Congress leader Rahul Gandhi
The five-judge bench in Supreme Court referred the review petitions filed against its September 28, 2018, verdict in Sabarimala case to a larger seven-judge SC bench. The verdict had lifted the ban that prevented women and girls between the menstruating age of 10 and 50 from entering the Ayyappa shrine in Kerala and termed the centuries-old religious practice as illegal and unconstitutional in September 2018. As many as 65 petitions were filed against the September 28, 2018, verdict that ended the ban seeking review of SC's verdict.
A three-judge bench led by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi on Thursday dismissed the review petitions filed against its December 14, 2018, judgment by which the Narendra Modi-led government was given a clean chit in the procurement of Rafale fighter jets, after finding it without any merit. While delivering the SC verdict, Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul said, "We do not consider the submissions for the registration of FIR to be fair."
The December verdict had declined a CBI investigation into the corruption allegations in the purchase of 36 jets from France’s Dassault Aviation at a cost of Rs 59,000 crore. The review pleas were filed by advocate Prashant Bhushan and former Union ministers Yashwant Sinha and Arun Shourie, among others, in December. Later, the apex court reserved verdict on a batch of petitions seeking review of its December 14 judgment. The court had reserved its verdict on May 10.
In a big relief to Congress leader Rahul Gandhi, the SC on Thursday accepted the apology filed by Gandhi in the contempt of plea case filed against him by BJP MP Meenakshi Lekhi. While delivering the verdict, the SC bench said, " Rahil Gandhi should not have made political comments without reading the full order. In light of the affidavits, Mr Gandhi needs to be more careful in future. We do not want to continue proceedings any further."
The plea was filed by BJP MP Meenakshi Lekhi for wrongly attributing to the Supreme Court his "chowkidar chor hai" remark in the Rafale case against PM Modi.
Here are the live updates of the Supreme Court's ruling in three crucial cases:-
Justice Joseph of the Supreme Court has opened a huge door into investigation of the RAFALE scam. An investigation must now begin in full earnest. A Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) must also be set up to probe this scam: Rahul Gandhi
Justice Joseph of the Supreme Court has opened a huge door into investigation of the RAFALE scam.
— Rahul Gandhi (@RahulGandhi) November 14, 2019
Retired Air Chief Marshal BS Dhanoa said that Rafale cost negotiation committee was headed by Deputy chief of Indian Air Force and everything was done correctly. He added that ultimately security forces are sufferer in such controversies.
Rafale controversy was created to gain petty political gains, says retired Air Chief Marshal BS Dhanoa.
''The allegation of corruption in Rafale deal was nothing but an attempt to malign the clean & honest image of PM Modi & his Govt,'' Defence Minister Rajnath Singh says.
From road to Parliament, Rahul Gandhi and his party tried hard to mislead the country on this issue but truth prevailed. I wish Rahul Gandhi would be in the country and should offer apologies to the nation, says JP Nadda, BJP working president.
Congress is full of corruption, says Ravi Shankar Prasad, referring to the opposition by the Congress in Rafale deal to procure 36 fighter jets.
SC verdict in Rafale case is the victory of truth, says BJP leader Ravi Shankar Prasad.
Rahul Gandhi should apologise to the nation, adds Prasad after SC dismissed review petition in Rafale case after finding that it had no merit.
Hearing into the petitions filed against the Centre's move to revoke Article 370 in Jammu and Kashmir will commence from December 10, says SC.
Supreme Court of India closes contempt proceedings against Rahul Gandhi in the "chowkidar chor hai comment" with a warning to exercise more caution in future.
While delivering the verdict, the SC bench says, " Rahil Gandhi should not have made political comments without reading the full order. In light of the affidavits, Mr Gandhi needs to be more careful in future. We do not want to continue proceedings any further."
In a big relief to Congress leader Rahul Gandhi, the SC has accepted the apology filed by Gandhi in the contempt of plea case against him.
Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul pronounced the judgment wherein the bench dismissed the review peitions and said, "We do not consider the submissions for the registration of FIR to be fair."
A three-judge Bench of Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi with Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and KM Joseph delivers judgment in the review petitions filed in Rafale case.
The review petition in Rafale case is dismissed by the SC after it was found to be without any merit.
In a 3:2 verdict, the SC has referred the case of review petitions against its verdict lifting the ban on entry of women between 10 and 50 years of age, to a larger seven-judge bench.
While CJI Ranjan Gogoi, justices J. Khanwilkar, Indu Malhotra ruled in favour of referring the Sabarimala review petition to a larger bench, Justice Nariman and Chandrachud were in dissent.
Religious practises are not to be against public order, morality and other, says SC. There is yet another seminal issue as to the power of the court to determine if the constitutional court can interfere in such integral parts of the religion, says CJI while discussing the issue of entry of Muslim women in mosques and Dawoodi Bora.
The entry of women into places of worship is not limited to this temple. It is involved in the entry of women into mosques, says CJI.
Entry of Muslim women in mosques, Parsi women case and Dawoodi Bora case are also similar to issues in Sabrimala review petition, says CJI.
SC refers the review petitions against the entry of women in Sabarimala temple to larger 7-judge bench.
The entry of women into places of worship is not limited to this temple only. It is also involved in the entry of women into mosques: CJI
SC refers the review petitions against the entry of women to the larger bench.
Ahead of SC verdict on Rafale review petition scheduled to be pronounced today, here's a timeline of fighter jet deal.
The Supreme Court will pronounce tomorrow its judgment on a contempt petition filed by BJP lawmaker Meenakshi Lekhi against Congress leader Rahul Gandhi for wrongly attributing the court while using his infamous "chowkidar chor hai" remark. Lekhi had accused Gandhi of misquoting the April 10 order of the apex court. He allegedly said that the apex court had accepted that `chowkidar` (a reference to Prime Minister Modi), is a "chor` (thief).
Pursuant to this, the Supreme Court had issued a contempt notice against Gandhi. A bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi was categorical that Gandhi had to either offer a clear-cut apology or face criminal contempt. Subsequently, Gandhi tendered an unconditional apology to the top court and sought closure of the contempt proceedings against him.
During the course of proceedings, former Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi, who represented Lekhi, had argued that Gandhi`s apology should be rejected and action must be taken against him.
The Supreme Court today will also deliver its judgement on as many as 65 petitions -- including 56 review petitions and four fresh writ petitions and five transfer pleas -- which were filed after the verdict on Sabarimala sparked violent protests in Kerala.
A five-judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi had reserved its decision on February 6 after hearing various parties including those seeking re-consideration of the September 28, 2018 judgement. Other members of the bench are justices R F Nariman, A M Khanwilkar, DY Chandrachud, and Indu Malhotra.
The five-judge constitution had heard the pleas in an open court and reserved its decision after hearing the parties, including Nair Service Society, Thantry of the temple, the Travancore Devaswom Board (TDB) and the state government, in favour and against the review plea.
The TDB, which runs Sabarimala temple, had made a U-turn to support the Supreme Court's order allowing women of all ages to enter the shrine. The TDB had joined the Kerala government to oppose a batch of pleas seeking review of the historic verdict. The Board later asserted that its latest position was not due to any political pressure.
Rafale verdict today: Will SC review its decision of giving clean chit to PM Narendra Modi in Rafale deal case?
The Supreme Court is scheduled to pronounce on Thursday its verdict on a batch of petitions seeking a review of its earlier judgement giving a clean chit to the Narendra Modi government in the Rafale fighter jet deal case with French firm Dassault Aviation.
The Supreme Court had in its 2018 order given a clean chit to the Modi government on a plea seeking investigation into alleged irregularities in the procurement of 36 Rafale fighter jets by India from France.
The verdict will be delivered by a three-judge bench presided by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and comprising Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and KM Joseph.
The Supreme Court had on December 14 last year dismissed petitions seeking court-monitored probe into Rafale fighter jet deal, saying that there was no occasion to doubt the decision-making process in the deal. The top court had also said that it was not its job to go into the issue of pricing of fighter planes.
Subsequently, review petitions were filed by former Union ministers Yashwant Sinha, Arun Shourie, lawyer Prashant Bhushan and others against the top court`s judgement.
Their petition states that the December 14 verdict contained several errors and it relied upon patently incorrect claims made by the government in an unsigned note given in a sealed cover to the court, which is a violation of the principle of natural justice.