Scorpene PIL Order Dt 13.01.2016

8/20/2019 Scorpene PIL Order Dt 13.01.2016

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/scorpene-pil-order-dt-13012016 1/4

W.P.(C) No.6426/2006 of 4

$~2* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 6426/2006

CENTRE FOR PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION ..... PetitionerThrough: Mr.Prashant Bhushan with Mr.RohitKumar Singh and Mr.O.Kuttan, Advs.

versus

UOI AND ANR ..... RespondentsThrough: Mr.Sanjay Jain, ASG withMr.Jasmeet Singh, CGSC, Ms.Aastha Jain andMr.Srivats, Advs. for UOI.Ms.Sonia Mathur, Adv. for CBIMr.Anup J.Bhambani, Sr.Adv. with Mr.RiteshDhar Dubey, Adv. for Outlook Publishing.

CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH

O R D E R

% 13.01.2016

1. This petition by way of Public Interest Litigation was filed on

26.04.2006 with the following prayers:

“(a) order a thorough court monitored investigation bythe CBI or by a Special Investigation Group, constituted

by this Hon’ ble Court, in the involvement ofunauthorized middlemen/commission agents in theScorpene submarine procurement deal and payment ofcommission/bribes, and if such allegations are foundcorrect, pass further consequential and necessarydirections, including prosecution of the persons foundinvolved;



W.P.(C) No.6426/2006 of 4

(b) direct the Respondents to identify the officialsguilty of serious dereliction of duty in not taking timely

and appropriate action to check the involvement ofmiddlemen/commission agents and payment ofcommission/bribes in the Scorpene deal despiteknowledge and to take appropriate disciplinary and penalaction against them;”

2. On the basis of certain investigative reports published in weekly news

magazine “Outlook” in its edition of 20.02.2006 and 27.02.2006, it is

alleged in the writ petition that the agreement by respondent No.1 and 2 with

the French Government and Thales (a French Company) on 07.10.2005 to

procure the Scorpene submarines is actuated with mala fides and extraneous

considerations and that the same needs to be thoroughly investigated.

3. The allegations in the petition included that the respondent Nos.1 and

2 went ahead with the deal despite having knowledge about the involvement

of middlemen as pointed out by the Central Vigilance Commission and the

CVO of Ministry of Defence way back in 2002; though CVC in its report

had informed the respondent No.1 that one of the companies involved in the

deal, namely, DCNI (the manufacturer of Scorpene submarines) was

blacklisted by the CVO of Ministry of Defence, the respondent Nos.1 and 2

went ahead and signed the deal; four months after the signing of the deal,

though it was exposed by a respectable news magazine about the

involvement of the middlemen and payment of huge commission/bribes, the

respondent No.1 failed to take any steps to review the deal and order an

investigation but merely ordered an inquiry by CBI against some of the

Naval Officers into the issue of the leak of classified information of the

Navy which led to the exposure of the involvement of the middlemen in the

Scorpene deal.



W.P.(C) No.6426/2006 of 4

4. It is pleaded in the writ petition that for ascertaining and gathering all

facts into the alleged high-level corruption in the Defence deals, the

intervention by this court is essential to order a complete investigation under

its direct supervision by CBI or any other independent investigating agency.

5. On 06.12.2006, a status report with regard to the investigation

conducted by CBI into the allegation of “Navy War Room Leak” was filed

in a sealed cover by the learned ASG appearing fro the respondents. On

17.12.2007, it was brought to the notice of this court by the learned ASG

that on receipt of the complaint from the petitioner dated 03.03.2006 (filed

in this petition as Annexure-P23), CBI had instituted a Preliminary Enquiry.

6. Thereafter on 25.07.2008, a copy of the report of the Preliminary

Enquiry by CBI was filed in this court in two sealed covers.

7. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner made a request to

furnish a copy of the said report to him, it is opposed by the learned counsel

for the CBI claiming privilege on the ground that it has received replies from

the National Central Bureau of United Kingdom, Canada and Switzerland

with the condition that the information supplied by them should not be

shared by private parties.

8. Having perused the Preliminary Enquiry Report, we are of the view

that there is substance in the objection raised by the respondents for

furnishing a copy of the Preliminary Enquiry Report to the petitioner.

Hence, the request of the learned Counsel for the petitioner to furnish a copy

of the report cannot be acceded to.

9. We have carefully gone through the Preliminary Enquiry Report. We

found that it is concluded in the Report that in view of the inquiries made

with the Ministry of Defence and in the light of the discussion of various

Scorpene PIL Order Dt 13.01.2016

Documents

Transcript of Scorpene PIL Order Dt 13.01.2016