The Supreme Court’s approach in scrutinising the Rafale deal on Wednesday was markedly different from what it had adopted on October 10

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court’s approach in scrutinising the Rafale deal on Wednesday was markedly different from what it had adopted on October 10 when it sought from the Centre details of the decision-making process without examining the price and technical specifications of the fighter jet.

On October 10, the bench headed by CJI Ranjan Gogoi, while seeking details of the decision-making process for purchase of 36 Rafale jets, had clarified that the information sought by the court “would not cover the issue of pricing or the question of technical suitability of the equipment (fully loaded jets) for purposes of the requirement of Indian Air Force”. Given the order, the Centre had, without mentioning the Official Secrets Act, provided a sealed-cover note on October 26 to the court giving ‘details of the steps in the decision-making process leading to award of 36 Rafale jet fighters’.

But on Wednesday, the bench changed its stance dramatically, asking the Centre to provide in sealed cover in 10 days Rafale price details and its advantages. AG KK Venugopal, who was confident of sailing through the SC scrutiny prior to the hearing, invoked the OSA and claimed privilege. He was told by the SC to file an affidavit explaining why the government can’t disclose price details.

On October 10, the SC had termed the PILs “inadequate and insufficient’. But on Wednesday, it told the Centre to give details of the decision-making process as well as the process of induction of Indian offset partners, which will include Reliance Defence, in the procurement of the fighter jets from Dassault Aviation, manufacturer of Rafale.

Previously, the SC adopted a cautious approach by asking the Centre to file details of the decision-making process in sealed cover with the Secretary General of the SC and not with the registry. On Wednesday, the SC was keen that all possible details of the Rafale deal, excluding sensitive information, be placed in public domain. If and why there was a change of approach from the SC would be possibly known on November 14, when the CJI-led bench takes up the PILs for further hearing.