August 05, 2026 04:16 am (IST)
Follow us:
facebook-white sharing button
twitter-white sharing button
instagram-white sharing button
youtube-white sharing button
Kejriwal marches to PM Modi's residence over E20 petrol, alleges 'Trump pressure' behind policy | DMK slams Vijay government over Udhayanidhi's arrest, calls it 'blatant cowardice' | Tamil Nadu political storm: Udhayanidhi Stalin arrested after Trisha remark row | Faridabad teacher stabbed 34 times in 30 seconds at school gate; shocking CCTV details emerge | 'It was a conspiracy': Brij Bhushan reacts after acquittal in wrestlers' sexual harassment case | After NEET protests, CJP backs Jharkhand students' agitation over alleged JPSC-JSSC exam irregularities | Brij Bhushan acquitted: Delhi Court clears ex-WFI chief in high-profile wrestlers' sexual harassment case | India finishes 4th at Commonwealth Games 2026 with 39 medals despite missing medal-rich sports | Kulgam terror attack turns deadlier: Second Chhattisgarh worker succumbs to bullet injuries | 'I'm ashamed': Girl who abused PM Modi during NEET protests issues apology

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.