- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Manohar Lal Sharma v. Narendra Damodardas Modi
Factual and Procedural Background
Several public interest litigations (PILs) were filed in the Supreme Court of India questioning aspects of the Government of India’s decision to procure 36 Rafale fighter aircraft. Earlier, in W.P. (Crl.) No. 225/2018 and W.P. (C) No. 1205/2018, the Court had issued an order dated 10 October 2018 directing the Union Government to place, in sealed cover, details of the decision-making process that led to the award of the contract. Two additional PILs—W.P. (Crl.) Nos. 297/2018 and 298/2018—were later filed on the same subject.
On 29 October 2018, the Government submitted a confidential note in sealed cover outlining “the steps in the decision making process leading to the award of 36 Rafale Jet-Fighters.” The matter was listed before the Court on 31 October 2018, leading to the present interim order.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the decision-making process undertaken by the Government of India in procuring 36 Rafale fighter aircraft was bona fide and free from procedural impropriety.
- Whether the price or cost at which the aircraft were to be procured was justified.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court made the following analytical observations and directives:
- Upon perusing the sealed-cover note, the Court refrained from expressing any substantive finding at this stage.
- The Court recognised that certain “core information” contained in the confidential report could legitimately be disclosed without compromising national security. It therefore directed that such information be supplied to counsel and petitioners.
- Details deemed “strategic and confidential” were to remain with the Court in sealed cover and withheld from the parties.
- The Court required additional sealed-cover information regarding pricing/cost advantages associated with the deal, signalling that price scrutiny falls within the scope of judicial review, albeit with due regard to confidentiality.
- Parties were granted ten days to receive the non-confidential information and to file their responses.
Holding and Implications
INTERIM DIRECTIONS ISSUED; MATTER LISTED FOR 14 NOVEMBER 2018.
Direct Effect: The Union Government must (a) furnish non-confidential portions of the decision-making record and offset-partner details to the petitioners and (b) submit further confidential information on pricing and strategic aspects to the Court in sealed cover within ten days.
Broader Implications: While no final determination has been made on the merits of the PILs, the order underscores the Court’s willingness to balance transparency and national security in defence-procurement litigation. No new legal precedent was formally set; the matter remains pending.
1. After we had passed the order dated in W.P.(Crl.) No. 225/2018 and W.P.(C) No. 1205/2018, two more public interest litigations have been filed on the same issue i.e. W.P.(Crl.) Nos. 297/2018 and 298/2018. Having perused the same, we would like to observe that in none of the public interest litigations before us, the suitability of the equipment (fighter jets) and its utility to the Indian Air Force has been questioned. What has been questioned is the bona fides of the decision making process and the price/cost of the equipment at which the same is to be procured. On 10.10.2018, we had passed the following order:—
“Permission to argue in person is granted in Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 225/2018.
We have heard the petitioner-in-person and the learned counsels for the parties. We are of the view that the following order would be appropriate at this stage.
We make it clear that we are not issuing any notice at this stage on either of the writ petitions filed under Article 32 of the Constitution. However, we would like to be apprised by the Government of India of the details of the steps in the decision making process leading to the award of the order for the defence equipment in question i.e. Rafale Jet-Fighters (36 in number).
We also make it clear that while requiring the Government of India to act in the above terms we have not taken into account any of the averments made in the writ petitions which appear to be inadequate and deficient. Our above order is only for the purpose of satisfying ourselves in the matter.
We also make it clear that the steps in the decision making process that we would like to be apprised of would not cover the issue of pricing or the question of technical suitability of the equipment for purposes of the requirement of the Indian Air Force.
The requisite information sought for will be placed before the Court in three separate sealed covers on or before 29 October, 2018 which shall be filed with the learned Secretary General of this Court and not in the Registry.
List the matters on 31 October, 2018.”
2. Pursuant to the said order, a note giving the “details of the steps in the decision making process leading to the award of 36 Rafale Jet-Fighters/Fighter Aircrafts”, has been submitted to the Court in a sealed cover.
3. We have perused the same.
4. At this stage, we would not like to record any finding or views with regard to the contents of the said report. Rather, we are of the opinion that such of the core information conveyed to the Court in the aforesaid confidential report which can legitimately be brought into the public domain be made available to the learned counsels for the petitioners in all the cases, as well as, the petitioners-in-person. Alongwith the said facts, further details that could legitimately come in the public domain with regard to the induction of the Indian offset partner (if any) be also furnished to the learned counsels for the parties, as well as, the petitioners in person. Such of the details in this regard which may be considered to be strategic and confidential may, at this stage, be placed before the Court and may not be furnished to the learned counsels for the parties or the petitioners-in-person. The Court would also like to be apprised of the details with regard to the pricing/cost, particularly, the advantage thereof, if any, which again will be submitted to the Court in a sealed cover.
5. The necessary information/particulars be communicated to the learned counsels for the parties and the petitioners-in-person, and the rest of the details in terms of the present order be submitted to the Court in a sealed cover in the next ten days. The parties may file their response to the information that would be conveyed.
6. Let the matter be listed on 14.11.2018.
Alert