Saturday, Apr 20, 2024 | Last Update : 05:52 AM IST
Centre to Supreme Court: Correct verdict error
The Centre made it clear that it did not say that the CAG report was examined by PAC or a redacted portion was placed before Parliament.
New Delhi: The Centre on Saturday moved the Supreme Court seeking correction in the Rafale jet judgement where a reference has been made about the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) report and Parliament’s Public Accounts Committee (PAC), saying “misinterpretation” of its note has “resulted in a controversy in the public domain”.
In the application, the Centre said the two sentences in paragraph 25 of the judgement appeared to have been based on the note submitted by it along with the pricing details in a sealed cover, but indicated the words used by the court lent a different meaning.
The Centre made it clear that it did not say that the CAG report was examined by PAC or a redacted portion was placed before Parliament.
It clarified that the note had said the Government “has already shared” the price details with the CAG, which was written in past tense and “is factually correct”. However, where it was stated by the Centre in the note that the report of the CAG “is” examined by the PAC, was a description of the procedure which is followed in the normal course, but in the judgement ‘is’ was replaced with the words ‘has been’, according to the application.
Similarly, the statement that only a redacted version of the report “is” placed before Parliament, was referred to in the judgment as “only a redacted portion of the report was placed before the Parliament,
and was in public domain”, the Centre said and sought necessary changes in the apex court order.
The government moved the application a day after the opposition Congress and others raised questions on the issue and accused the government of misleading the apex court on CAG report. Congress leader Mallikarjun Kharge, who chairs the PAC, had said no such report had come to him.
In regard to the pricing details being placed before the CAG, PAC and Parliament, para 25 of the judgement read, “The pricing details have, however, been shared with Comptroller and Auditor General, and the report of the CAG has been examined by the Public Accounts Committee. Only a redacted portion of the report was placed before the Parliament and is in public domain.”
