Case Brief: Manohar Lal Sharma v. Narendra Damodardas Modi & Others | Civil Law for Judiciary Exams PDF Download

Case Brief: Manohar Lal Sharma v. Narendra Damodardas Modi & Others (RAFALE CASE)

• Court: Supreme Court of India
• Justices: CJI RanjanGogoi, Justice K.M. Joseph, Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul
• Judgement: India

Introduction to Manohar Lal Sharma v. Narendra Damodardas Modi

• Overview: This legal case, commonly referred to as 'the Rafale case', was presided over by a bench consisting of Justice RanjanGogoi, Justice Kaul, and Justice Joseph in the Supreme Court of India.
• Decision Making: The justices deliberated on the Rafale case, considering arguments from both sides before reaching a verdict.
• Significance: The case raised concerns regarding governance, transparency, and accountability within the government, with allegations directed at the current administration by the opposition party.
• Public Attention: The controversy surrounding this case attracted significant media and public attention due to its implications on governmental processes and integrity.

Background to Manohar Lal Sharma v. Narendra Damodardas Modi

• The origins of the case date back to 2007 during the tenure of the Congress-led UPA government with Manmohan Singh as the Prime Minister.
• The Ministry of Defence initiated a request for the acquisition of 126 multirole combat aircraft fighters.
• An extensive testing process was conducted to determine the most suitable aircraft for India.
• In 2012, Dassault Aviation's Rafale aircraft emerged as the preferred choice with the lowest bid.
• Subsequently, in 2014, an agreement was reached between Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. (HAL) and Dassault for the procurement of 18 aircraft in 'fly-away' condition and the manufacture of 108 aircraft in India by HAL.
• However, challenges arose as Dassault was required to guarantee the aircraft manufactured in India, delaying the finalization of the deal.
• In 2015, a new government came into power and introduced a revised deal to purchase 36 Rafale aircraft directly from France in 'fly-away' condition, totaling Rs. 60,000 crore.
• Controversies surfaced regarding the perceived higher cost of the aircraft under the new deal compared to the UPA government's initial negotiation and the involvement of a private company in the partnership with Dassault.

Issues

• Does the Rafale fighter deal exhibit pricing irregularities, given the higher per unit cost in the new agreement compared to the previous UPA negotiation?
• Is the Rafale Fighter Jet Deal classified as an inter-governmental agreement between India and France?
• Did the Central Government adhere to proper procedures when transitioning from the procurement of 126 aircraft to only 36 aircraft?
• Was Reliance Defence Ltd. proposed as Dassault Aviation's Indian Offset Partner without the necessary approval of the Defence Minister, as outlined in clause 8.6 of the Defence Offset Guidelines?

Important Arguments of Both the Parties

Petitioner

• Challenges the fulfillment of prerequisites for entering into an Inter-Governmental Agreement (IGA) citing the absence of a 'Sovereign Guarantee' from the Government of France, only providing a 'Letter of Comfort'.
• Alleges that amendments to the Offset Guidelines, specifically in paragraph 8, were made retrospectively to conceal details about the Indian Offset partner, allowing vendors to disclose information at a later stage, thus fostering secrecy.

Respondents

• Refer to paragraph 71 of the Defence Procurement Procedure (DPP) 2013, justifying the IGA as a means to procure from friendly foreign countries for geostrategic benefits, deviating from standard procurement procedures.
• Highlight that negotiations by the Indian Negotiation Team (INT) resulted in more favorable terms in terms of price, delivery, and maintenance compared to the MMRCA offer by Dassault, following the procedures outlined in para 72 of DPP 2013.

Judgement: Manohar Lal Sharma v. Narendra Damodardas Modi

• CJI Rajan Gogoi authored a unanimous judgement in the case.
• The scope of judicial review varies based on the subject matter, with a focus on protecting India's sovereignty and integrity.
• The Court's scrutiny was limited due to the defense procurement nature of the Rafale deal.
• Key aspects under scrutiny included the decision-making process, price variations, and the Indian Offset Partner (IOP).
• Previous issues with the 126-jet deal between the UPA government and Dassault led to the new agreement for 36 Rafale Jets.
• The Court acknowledged the government's negotiations with the French Government before finalizing the new deal.
• The Court, satisfied with the process, declined to scrutinize the government's decision to purchase 36 jets instead of 126.
• Concerns about pricing and corruption allegations were addressed, with details kept confidential for national security reasons.
• The selection of the Indian Offset Partner (IOP) was governed by Defense Offset Guidelines, with the Court dismissing allegations of favoritism.
• An amendment to the Defense Offset Guidelines allowed for the non-disclosure of the offset partner, which was applied retrospectively.
• The Court emphasized that technical feasibility matters were not within its purview.
• The petition for a judicial probe into the Rafale Deal was dismissed by the Court.

Present Status

• The judgment in the case remains applicable.

Conclusion

• The court concluded that after a thorough examination of all the issues, no valid reasons were found regarding the Indian Government's purchase of 36 defense aircraft.
• The court emphasized that individual perceptions cannot serve as the basis for an unfounded investigation by the court, particularly in such critical matters.
• As a result, the court dismissed all the petitions, directing the parties involved to bear their own costs.