Begin typing your search above and press return to search.
Points to ponder before the Al-Qaeda hunt
access_time 22 Sep 2020 6:25 AM GMT
Farmer rage and Opposition parties
access_time 19 Sep 2020 6:51 AM GMT
access_time 19 Sep 2020 3:50 AM GMT
Going beyond birthday celebration
access_time 18 Sep 2020 6:05 AM GMT
Periyar@142-Revolutionary and Visionary
access_time 17 Sep 2020 11:57 AM GMT
DEEP READAll arrow_drop_down
The ogres in the mind
access_time 8 Sep 2020 11:27 AM GMT
Why worry about populism?
access_time 4 Sep 2020 9:51 AM GMT
Media mind-set towards minorities
access_time 15 July 2020 4:29 PM GMT
Homechevron_rightIndiachevron_rightSC allows Centres plea ...

SC allows Centre's plea to defer Rafale hearing

SC allows Centres plea to defer Rafale hearing

New Delhi: Acting on Centre's plea to defer the Rafael verdict review hearing fixed for Tuesday on grounds that it needs time to file reply on merits, the Supreme Court on Monday allowed the Centre to circulate a letter for adjournment of the hearing.

A bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi permitted the Centre's counsel to circulate the letter regarding the deferement among parties, including petitioners, who filed review pleas in the apex court.

The top court had on April 10 allowed the pleas asking the court to review its judgement on Rafale deal based on media reports on leaked documents, and also urged the court to dismiss the government's objections claiming "privilege" on the documents.

The Centre had contended before the court that the three privileged documents were unauthorisedly removed from the government ministry concerned, and then these documents were used by the petitioner to file review petition challenging the top court judgment of December 14, 2018.

In the December 14, 2018 judgment, the court had dismissed all pleas challenging the Rafale fighter jets deal.

India and France got into a deal in 2015 for the procurement of fighter jets.

The Centre has contended that the documents were protected under the Official Secrets Act, and therefore, not admissible as evidence in the court, but the Supreme Court rejected it.

The court noted that the documents were published in consonance with the freedom of speech guaranteed under the Constitution.

Show Full Article
Next Story