The Centre said the CAG report "belied" the main arguments of petitioners regarding the allegedly "exorbitant price" of the jets. Centre said petitioners have not made any ground to justify reviewing December 14 judgement. Centre said since the scope of the review petition was extremely limited. Petitioners had said Centre misled Supreme Court in Rafale case amounting to "wholesale fraud"

The Centre has told the Supreme Court that there was no question of either registration of an FIR or investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in the Rafale fighter jets deal as the apex court had already concluded there was no reason for its intervention on the "sensitive issue".

The Centre - which sought the dismissal of petitions seeking to review the verdict from December 14 last year, which gave a clean chit to the government on procuring 36 fighter jets from French firm Dassault - said the CAG report "belied" the main arguments of petitioners regarding the allegedly "exorbitant price" of the jets.

In its 39-page written submissions filed in the Supreme Court, the Centre said petitioners and former union ministers Yashwant Sinha, Arun Shourie and activist-advocate Prashant Bhushan have not made any ground to justify reviewing the "well reasoned" December 14 judgement last year.

"Especially, once this court had come to the conclusion that on all the three aspects i.e., the decision making process, pricing and Indian offset partner, there is no reason for intervention by this court on the sensitive issue of purchase of 36 Rafale fighter aircrafts by the Indian Government, there is no question of either registration of FIR much less any investigation by the CBI," the government said.

A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi had on May 10 reserved its verdict on the pleas seeking to review the December 14 judgement in the Rafale case.

The Supreme Court had said there was no occasion to doubt the decision-making process in the 36 Rafale jets' procurement and dismissed petitions seeking an investigation into alleged irregularities in the Rs 58,000 crore deal.

Besides Sinha, Shourie and Bhushan, review petitions have also been filed by AAP lawmaker Sanjay Singh and lawyer Vineet Dhandha.

In its written submissions, the Centre said since the scope of the review petition was extremely limited, the petitioners could not seek to re-open the whole matter under the garb of seeking to review the verdict on the reliance of "some press reports and some incomplete internal file noting(s), copies of which were obtained unauthorisedly and illegally".

"The review petition, it is therefore, submitted is an attempt to get a fishing and roving enquiry ordered, which this court has specifically declined to go into based on perceptions of individuals," it said.

The Centre also said the petitioners have not disclosed any new evidence in the review petition "except that they have now based their case on some unauthorisedly accessed documents copied from the secret files of the Ministry of Defence."

It said files and documents were made available to the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) who took about two years to complete its study and finalise its report.

"The report of the CAG does not support the main argument of petitioners which has been perpetually repeated before this court that the cost of each aircraft under 36 Rafale contract is Rs 1,000 crore higher than what it would have been under the MMRCA bid," the Centre said.

"The basic price of the aircraft has been informed to the Parliament as approximately Rs 670 crore at prevailing exchange rate of November, 2016; without associated equipment, weapons, India Specific Enhancements, maintenance support and services," it said.

It also said for the overall aircraft package, "the CAG has held that the contract was concluded at a price which is 2.86 per cent lower than the audit aligned price."

The government reiterated it has no role in the selecting the Indian offset partner which is a commercial decision of Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM). It said monitoring a government to government process by the Prime Minister's Office (PMO) cannot be construed as interference or parallel negotiations.

Regarding the petitioners' claim that the government had suppressed and concealed material facts from the Supreme Court, the Centre said the allegations were devoid of merit.

"It is submitted that the IGA for 36 Rafale procurement is between the two sovereign nations and the implementation of the project which is on schedule is being closely monitored by both the Governments. The adequate safeguards are built into IGA for ensuring smooth implementation of the project," it said.

"The training of Indian Air Force personnel is underway in France. Any attempt to bring this procurement under cloud may result into delay in implementation of the project and would affect the operational preparedness of Indian Air Force," the Centre said.

Earlier, Sinha, Shourie and Bhushan had in the Supreme Court alleged the Centre "wilfully and deliberately" misled the court in the Rafale fighter jet case and this amounted to "wholesale fraud".

On the scope of judicial review, they had said the Supreme Court was well within its right to exercise the jurisdiction in matters of allegations of corruption, procedural violations and mala fide decision making.