Former union ministers Yashwant Sinha and Arun Shourie along with advocate Prashant Bhushan approached the Supreme Court Wednesday seeking review of its December 14 judgement which dismissed all PILs alleging irregularities in the procurement of 36 Rafale jets from France.
The apex court had relied upon "patently incorrect" claims made by the government in an unsigned note given in a sealed cover in the court, they alleged in their review plea.
They said that they were not given an opportunity to be heard on the claims made by the government in the note "resulting in gross miscarriage of justice".
A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi had on December 14 dismissed all Public Interest Litigations (PILs) against the deal between India and France for procurement of 36 Rafale fighter jets, saying there was no occasion to "really doubt the decision making process" warranting setting aside of the contract.
The top court had rejected the pleas seeking lodging of an FIR and the court-monitored probe alleging irregularities in the Rs 58,000 crore deal, in which both the countries have entered into an inter-governmental agreement (IGA).
The Rafale fighter is a twin-engine Medium Multi Role Combat Aircraft (MMRCA) manufactured by French aerospace company Dassault Aviation.
More From This Section
Sinha, Shourie and Bhushan have claimed that the judgement was based on "errors apparent on the face of the record" and non-consideration of subsequent information which has come to light would cause a grave miscarriage of justice.
Besides seeking review of the judgement, they have also sought hearing of the plea in an open court.
They have claimed that prayer in their PIL seeking registration of FIR and investigation by the CBI in Rafale deal was not dealt with by the court and "instead the contract has been reviewed prematurely without the benefit of any investigation or inquiry into disputed questions of facts".
They said they had made a complaint to the CBI on October 4 last year in connection with the Rafale deal and since no FIR was lodged by the agency, they had moved the top court seeking direction for registration of an FIR and probe by CBI.
"In the instant case without any investigation by statutory authorities (as sought by the petitioner) or even by way of a commission, the court has erred in prematurely reviewing the contract itself, without even affording an opportunity to the CBI to apprise the court of the status of the complaint that was made by the petitioners and findings thereof," the review plea said.
It further said, "The judgement relies upon patently incorrect claims made by the government in an unsigned note given in a sealed cover to the court without being shown to the petitioners which is a violation of principles of natural justice."
Regarding the government's application seeking correction in the judgement, the review plea has claimed that the "said application imputes that three justices misinterpreted that one paragraph in the same manner which is highly improbable."