The petitioners asked what would happen to India’s security if the deal falters resulting in non-delivery of jets and the French government fails to guarantee recovery of funds. A law ministry source said the ministry cleared the deal taking into account the French PM’s assurance and adequate in-built guarantee mechanism in the inter-governmental agreement

NEW DELHI: The law ministry had flagged the absence of a “sovereign guarantee” from France for the Rafale deal, petitioners Prashant Bhushan and Arun Shourie on Wednesday told the Supreme Court, which is hearing PILs seeking a CBI probe into alleged financial and procedural irregularities in the fighter jet deal.

The petitioners asked what would happen to India’s security if the deal falters resulting in non-delivery of jets and the French government fails to guarantee recovery of funds.

Attorney general K K Venugopal countered, saying though India did not have a “sovereign guarantee” from the French government for the deal, it has got a “letter of comfort” from the French Prime Minister, which adequately satisfies concerns that could arise in case of failure of the deal.

A law ministry source said the ministry cleared the deal taking into account the French PM’s assurance and adequate in-built guarantee mechanism in the inter-governmental agreement.

The court also heard Air Vice-Marshal T Chalapati and additional defence secretary Apurva Chandra, who defended the deal, and AAP MP Sanjay Singh and advocates M L Sharma and Vineet Dhanda, who pitched for a court-monitored CBI probe.

Bhushan and Shourie, who together argued for more than an hour, focused on several issues: The terms of the deal that the UPA had sought to negotiate provided for manufacturing under licence of 108 jets by Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd, which could have generated employment and enhanced India’s defence production capability; the UPA deal was much better as it involved mandatory technology transfer that could have bolstered India’s defence production; and that the IGA route was used to scuttle the request for proposal (RFP or tender) procedure.

Then the duo made synchronised attempts to pin the NDA government down for its reluctance to share price details of Rafale jets and said the Indian offset partner clause in the new deal for 36 aircraft was a clever attempt to stealthily induct Anil Ambani’s Reliance Defence even when ADAG had no experience in defence production. Shourie targeted the PM by quoting Ambani’s past interview in which he purportedly admitted that Modi had personally persuaded him to venture into the defence sector.

However, the bench withstood constant pressure from petitioners to make public the price of Rafale jets. The bench, which had been provided with the break-up of Rafale jet costs — bare-bone structure, weaponry loaded and its avionics — refused to go into the issue of the cost of the jets.

CJI Gogoi asked the AG whether the jets being purchased now and the ones that were to be purchased under the deal by the UPA government were the same, and whether the details of weaponry and equipment fitted to the bare aircraft were made public earlier.

The AG said the bare structure of the aircraft is the same, but the weaponry is different. He also said the UPA deal too did not reveal what equipment and weaponry were being fitted to the jet and their costs.