Sign in

AAP MP Sanjay Singh files petition in Supreme Court for review of Rafale verdict

Seeking an open court hearing and a re-look at its judgment which was based on “misinformation by the government”, Aam Aadmi Party member of Parliament and petitioner in the Rafale case, Sanjay Singh in his petition asked the apex court to initiate contempt proceedings against officials responsible for it.

Published on: Jan 14, 2019, 23:31:29 IST
Hindustan Times, New Delhi | By
Share
Share via
  • facebook
  • twitter
  • linkedin
  • whatsapp
Copy link
  • copy link

Aam Aadmi Party member of Parliament and petitioner in the Rafale case, Sanjay Singh, on Monday filed a review petition in the Supreme Court asking it to review the December 14, 2018 judgment dismissing pleas demanding a court-monitored CBI probe into the alleged irregularities in the procurement of 36 Rafale fighter jets.

Aam Aadmi Party member of Parliament and petitioner in the Rafale case, Sanjay Singh, on Monday filed a review petition in the Supreme Court asking it to review the December 14, 2018 judgment dismissing pleas demanding a court-monitored CBI probe into the alleged irregularities in the procurement of 36 Rafale fighter jets. (ANI Photo)
Aam Aadmi Party member of Parliament and petitioner in the Rafale case, Sanjay Singh, on Monday filed a review petition in the Supreme Court asking it to review the December 14, 2018 judgment dismissing pleas demanding a court-monitored CBI probe into the alleged irregularities in the procurement of 36 Rafale fighter jets. (ANI Photo)

Seeking an open court hearing and a re-look at its judgment which was based on “misinformation by the government”, Sanjay Singh in his petition asked the apex court to initiate contempt proceedings against officials responsible for it.

This is the second review petition to be filed in the matter. Earlier, former BJP minister Yashwant Sinha, Arun Shourie and advocate Prashant Bhushan filed a review petition saying the judgment relied upon “patently incorrect claims” made by the government in a sealed cover to the top court.

The court had in its judgment held that there were no commercial favouritism and no occasion to “really doubt the decision-making process”.