oppn parties Supreme Court Bats For Transparency In Governance And Free Speech

News Snippets

  • China says that the next Dalai Lama will be appointed by it
  • Pakistan assures India that no anti-India activity would be allowed in the Kartarpur corridor
  • Pakistan to allow visa-free access to 5000 pilgrims every day to undertake pilgrimage using the Kartarpur corridor
  • Karnataka crisis: BJP wants floor test today
  • Novak Djokovic fights off a spirited challenge from Roger Federer to win his 5th Wimbledon title in an epic - the best ever - final that went on for nearly five hours
  • England wins the World Cup in an epic final that went down to the wire. The match was tied and the Super over was tied too, but England won as they hit more boundaries
  • Good news for monsoon, El Nino weakens and is likely to fade away in a couple of months
  • SC rules that Maratha quota in Maharashtra cannot be applied retrospectively
  • Iconic Laxman Jhula in Rishikesh shut down as it is in danger of collapse due to overload
  • SBI not to charge any amount for digital money transfers through RTGS, NEFT and IMPS
  • Pakistan says Indian planes can only fly over its airspace if India pulls back its fighter jets from advanced bases
  • Congress-JD(S) alliance to seek floor test at the earliest
  • Supreme Court orders status quo in Karnataka case till Tuesday
  • UP BJP legislator Rajesh [email protected]@@s daughter alleges he sent goons after her for marrying outside the caste
  • CBI raids activists Indira jaising and Anand Grover for alleged violation of FCRA in their NGO
ISRO calls-off Chandrayaan-2 mission launch at last moment due to technical snags. revised date will be announced later
oppn parties
Supreme Court Bats For Transparency In Governance And Free Speech

By Sunil Garodia

About the Author

Sunil Garodia Editor-in-Chief of indiacommentary.com. Current Affairs analyst and political commentator. Writes for a number of publications.
The Supreme Court has, by dismissing objections by the government against petitions for review of its 2018 order on the Rafale deal, batted strongly for free speech and transparency in governance. Its order has two distinct threads and both of them are of immense importance to democracy.

In the first thread, the court has clearly said that the government cannot invoke acts like the Official Secrets Act or Evidence Act to claim privilege over documents produced as evidence in any court of law. It forcefully said that the authenticity of the submitted documents was all that mattered; it was not for the court to see how they were sourced.

In the second thread, the court said that the media have unfettered right to publish such documents (stories based on the Rafale documents were first published by the newspaper The Hindu) and again the government cannot stop such publication as there was no law that empowered it to do so, even by pleading that the documents are “secret” or classified. The court observed that “the right of such publication would seem to be in consonance with the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech”. The court also cited the US Supreme Court judgment in the Pentagon Papers case in this regard.

If a government is allowed to claim privilege over official documents, we can kiss transparency goodbye. In the instant case, documents sourced and published by The Hindu showed that there were dissenting notes from the India Negotiating Team and notes from the Defence Ministry about interference from the PMO during the negotiations for buying the Rafale jets. These are matters that the public must know. These are also matters which may make the Supreme Court change its mind and go in for examining the Rafale deal in detail.

In any case, if the government has nothing to hide it should not be worried about the documents. In such a huge deal there are several twists and turns and offers and counter-offers. The team dealing with Rafale must have been advised by the Defence Ministry, the Finance Ministry or even the PMO. There are many implications of such a deal and it is not improper for several government wings to be involved. What the court and the nation must know, however, is whether the interference by the PMO was to offer general advice or to influence the deal, either price-wise or in favour of any party. If it was the latter, then it would amount to corruption.

The legal battle may have just begun. First, based on this new evidence, the Supreme Court will now decide whether it needs to revisit its original order dismissing an inquiry in the deal. If it decides that it will review, then the whole deal will perhaps be examined threadbare and the nation will come to know whether the chowkidar is actually chor or whether it was just an election slogan coined by the spin doctors of a frustrated politician.