ISSN (Print) - 0012-9976 | ISSN (Online) - 2349-8846

A+| A| A-

Rafale Judgment on Trial

Supreme Court can exercise judicial activism only to the extent that the government of the day permits it.

 

The Supreme Court’s judgment refusing to set up an investigation team to look into the Rafale deal has an air of haste and incompleteness about it. Multiple factual errors have been pointed out by commentators already, the most notable one being the Court’s belief that the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) of India had already submitted a report on the deal to the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) of the Parliament. While this glaring and obvious error has rightly absorbed attention in the public sphere, the Court’s judgment is also based on other questionable assumptions of fact and avoidance of legal analysis.

What aggravates these errors is the shoddy manner in which the Court proceeded to hear this case. Despite having noted that the initial petitioners had filed flimsy and skeletal petitions which deserved to be dismissed, the Court nonetheless kept the matter alive until a more informed and detailed intervention was made. Even so, throughout the hearings, the Court never seemed entirely convinced of the need to probe deeper into the issue.

Dear reader,

To continue reading, become a subscriber.

Explore our attractive subscription offers.

Click here

Updated On : 11th Jan, 2019

Comments

(-) Hide

EPW looks forward to your comments. Please note that comments are moderated as per our comments policy. They may take some time to appear. A comment, if suitable, may be selected for publication in the Letters pages of EPW.

Back to Top