July 10, 2026 04:50 am (IST)
Follow us:
facebook-white sharing button
twitter-white sharing button
instagram-white sharing button
youtube-white sharing button
Indian techie allegedly kills wife in US, sends photo of her body to 'secret girlfriend' in India; arrested | 'I fled the city': Thane doctor quits after alleged assault by Shiv Sena leader | Sensex surges 500 points before losing steam, ends marginally higher after volatile trading session | US court drops charges against Indian-origin doctor who drove Tesla off 250-foot cliff with family | Dalal Street bleeds! Sensex tanks over 1,600 points after Trump declares Iran ceasefire 'over' | 'It's over': Trump says on ceasefire with Iran | PM Modi visits 1,000-year-old Prambanan Temple in Indonesia, shares majestic aerial view of the holy site | Baruipur minor rape-murder case: Key accused Pravash Mondal killed in encounter | 'We have been cheated': Egypt coach slams refereeing after Argentina match sparks controversy | From 0-2 to victory! Argentina stage miraculous comeback amid referee drama to crush Egypt's World Cup dream

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.