September 25, 2026 09:21 pm (IST)
Follow us:
facebook-white sharing button
twitter-white sharing button
instagram-white sharing button
youtube-white sharing button
Trouble for Gyanesh Kumar? Plea filed in Supreme Court seeking prosecution of CEC | Air India pilot suspended after failing alcohol test before Zurich-Delhi flight, weeks after marijuana case | 'Don't be selective, boycott all elections': CJP's Abhijeet Dipke's blunt message to Opposition | 'Resign by tomorrow or face nationwide protest from October 2': CJP's Abhijeet Dipke's fresh warning to Gyanesh Kumar | 'Locked' iPhone 17 at centre of mystery surrounding IIT Bombay student's death | 'Rahul Gandhi is devoid of wisdom and knowledge': BJP hits back over 'vote theft' claim | ‘How does anti-incumbency disappear?’: Rahul Gandhi targets Modi, Shah in fresh ‘vote chori’ attack, demands Gyanesh Kumar’s resignation | Opposition readies fresh impeachment push against Gyanesh Kumar over SIR report | ‘Resign in 48 hours or face nationwide agitation’: CJP’s ultimatum to Gyanesh Kumar over SIR row | IIT Bombay student’s parents begin hunger strike, demand arrest of officials

Supreme Court will hear Rafale verdict review pleas in open court

| @indiablooms | Feb 26, 2019, at 09:20 pm

New Delhi, Feb 26 (IBNS): The Supreme Court today allowed open court hearings on pleas seeking review of its December 14, 2018 verdict on Rafale deal case, reports said.

A bench of Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi, Justice S.K. Kaul and Justice K.M. Joseph agreed to hear the two review petitions, which challenge the December 14 judgment that give the Centre a clean chit on the Rafale deal.

“The prayer for open court hearing is allowed,” the bench said.

While the petitioners in the first case are former Union ministers Yashwant Sinha and Arun Shourie, and advocate Prashant Bhushan, the second was filed by Aam Aadmi Party MP Sanjay Singh.

The petitioners claim the Supreme Court had been misled with "incorrect claims" made by the Centre.

In its December order, the Supreme Court had said it found no reason to justify the corruption allegations in the case.

"There is no evidence of commercial favouritism to any private entity," the court had then said.
 

Support Our Journalism

We cannot do without you.. your contribution supports unbiased journalism

IBNS is not driven by any ism- not wokeism, not racism, not skewed secularism, not hyper right-wing or left liberal ideals, nor by any hardline religious beliefs or hyper nationalism. We want to serve you good old objective news, as they are. We do not judge or preach. We let people decide for themselves. We only try to present factual and well-sourced news.

Support objective journalism for a small contribution.