Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court of India delivered a judgment on a review petition and miscellaneous applications arising from its earlier judgment dated 14.12.2018 concerning the procurement of 36 Rafale fighter jets. The Union of India filed an application seeking correction of two sentences in paragraph 25 of the judgment, claiming that the Court had misinterpreted a confidential note regarding the sharing of pricing details with the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) and the examination by the Public Accounts Committee (PAC). The Court accepted the application, noting that the confusion arose from the note referring partly to what had been done and partly to what was proposed. The Court replaced the erroneous sentences with the correct version from the note. The review petitions, including those filed by Yashwant Sinha and others, were dismissed as they failed to disclose any error apparent on the face of the record. The Court reiterated that review is not an appeal in disguise and that the scope of judicial review under Article 32 in matters of procurement is limited. The Court had earlier examined three aspects: decision-making process, pricing, and offsets, and found no grounds to interfere. The petitioners' prayer for registration of an FIR and investigation by the CBI was deemed covered by the earlier decision. The Court also noted that the application under Section 340 of the CrPC was partly addressed by the correction order. The judgment upheld the earlier decision and dismissed all pending applications.
Headnote
A) Review Jurisdiction - Error Apparent on Face of Record - Review petitions under Article 137 of the Constitution of India - The Court reiterated that review is not an appeal in disguise and is maintainable only if there is an error apparent on the face of the record. The petitioners failed to demonstrate any such error, and the review petitions were dismissed. (Paras 11, 24) B) Judicial Review - Procurement Contracts - Scope of Article 32 - The Court held that the extent of permissible judicial review in matters of contract and procurement varies with the subject matter. In the context of a writ petition under Article 32, the Court limited its enquiry to the decision-making process, pricing, and offsets, and declined to conduct a roving and fishing inquiry. (Paras 12-13) C) Correction of Judgment - Factual Error - The Court allowed the Union of India's application for correction of a factual error in paragraph 25 of the judgment regarding the status of the CAG report and PAC examination, replacing the earlier sentences with the correct version from the confidential note. (Paras 2-7) D) Criminal Proceedings - Section 340 CrPC - The application under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for initiating criminal proceedings was partly dealt with in the correction order and did not warrant further discussion. (Para 11)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the review petitions disclose an error apparent on the face of the record warranting review of the judgment dated 14.12.2018 in the Rafale fighter jet procurement matter.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the Union of India's application for correction of the judgment, replacing the erroneous sentences in paragraph 25 with the correct version. The Court dismissed all review petitions and miscellaneous applications, including the application under Section 340 CrPC, finding no error apparent on the face of the record.
Law Points
- Review jurisdiction
- Error apparent on face of record
- Judicial review of procurement contracts
- Scope of Article 32
- Decision making process
- Pricing of defence contracts
- Offsets
