"Air India Disinvestment process rigged in favour of Tata:" Subramanian Swamy to Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court will pronounce its order on January 6, Thursday on the plea filed by BJP leader Subramanian Swamy seeking quashing of the Air India disinvestment process in which Tata Sons had emerged as a winner of the bid. .A Bench of Chief Justice DN Patel and Justice Jyoti Singh said that it will pronounce its order on Thursday and also directed the parties to file their notes in the case by tomorrow. ."We will pass orders the day after. We must get the notes the by tomorrow," the Court said..Swamy had approached the High Court seeking a direction to the Central government to quash the disinvestment process of Air India and to revoke any permission given for the said purpose. The plea also sought a inquiry into the role of respondents in the disinvestment process and submit a detailed report before the Court. .In October last year, Center had accepted the highest bid made by a Tata Sons for 100 per cent equity shares of Air India and Air India Express along with half the stake in its ground-handling company named AISATS. .The very same month, government signed a share purchase agreement with the Tatas for ₹18,000 crore for the sale of Air India. Tatas are expected to pay ₹2,700 crore cash and takeover ₹13,500 crore of the carrier's debt.The Air India disinvestment is the first such in the country in the last two decades. .When the matter was taken up or hearing today, Swamy contended that the bidding process was unconstitutional, mala fide and corrupt and rigged in favour of the Tatas.He also alleged that the other bidder was a consortium led by the SpiceJet owner. He pointed out that there was an insolvency process ongoing in Madras High Court which passed orders against SpiceJet and therefore it was not entitled to bid. "This means there was only one bidder and the bid cannot take place. After the bidding process, a story appeared in press that the second bidder said he was happy that he participated because if he had not, the bidding process could not have gone forward," Swamy submitted.Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Central government, told the Court that disinvestment was a policy decision taken by the government in view of the fact that the national carrier was running into losses.He maintained that there was nothing surreptitious about the deal and the issue cannot be gone into by the Court under Article 226."The decision was taken in 2017 and the condition was whenever we invite the bidding till that day the losses will be incurred by government and after that by the winner of the bid. This is not something that has been done surreptitiously," he said.On the merits of Swamy's arguments, Mehta said that SpiceJet was never part of the consortium (which participated in the bid). "The second ground is that SpiceJet is facing some proceedings in Madras High Court. But SpiceJet was never part of the Consortium. It was its owner, Ajay Singh," he said.Mehta also said that the proceedings against another airline Air Asia has nothing to do with the present disinvestment. "The Respondent 6 is Talace Private Limited which acquired Air India. It is wholly owned by Tata Sons and has nothing to do with Air Asia. Whatever Air Asia faced in past is completely irrelevant here," he said..Senior Counsel Harish Salve, representing Tata, submitted that the successful bidder is a 100 percent Indian company and the allegations of corruption are without any basis."From 2017, Government has been facing difficulties to sell the airline. There is nothing in this petition. No particulars are given. They can just repeat that there is corruption but no details are given," Salve said..Swamy maintained that he is not against disinvestment and free market but his grievance was against the procedure which was followed which he alleged was rigged to favour Tata."I am not against disinvestment. I have always been in favour of free market. To say I am opposing disinvestment is completely wrong. I am not on the question of loss. I am on the procedure which has been rigged in favour of one company," he argued.The Court then proceeded to reserve its order.