Supreme Court ends long-pending plea against Hinduja brothers’ relief in Bofors case

The Supreme Court of India dismissed a plea challenging the Delhi High Court’s 2005 order that quashed criminal proceedings against the Hinduja brothers in the Bofors payoff case, bringing the long-pending challenge to a close, according to a report by The Times of India.

A bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and Vinod K Chandran declined to adjourn the matter and refused to entertain further submissions during the hearing.

The petitioner, advocate Ajay K Agrawal, appeared virtually and sought four weeks to remove the names of two respondents who had died.


“I’m seeking four weeks’ time for deletion of the names, as respondent nos. 1 and 4 have expired,” the advocate told the bench.

Justice Pardiwala questioned why the matter was still pending after so many years and referred to the earlier proceedings involving the Hinduja brothers and the CBI.

When the bench was told that the Delhi High Court had exonerated the accused and quashed the proceedings, Justice Pardiwala questioned the need for continuing the case, noting that the original deal dated back to 1986.

The court also refused to defer the hearing. “No question of adjournment. It is a 2018 matter,” Justice Pardiwala said.

During the hearing, counsel submitted that a separate appeal filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation had earlier been dismissed by the Supreme Court because the agency was already a respondent in the present matter and could advance its arguments through it.

The case relates to the Bofors scandal surrounding the Rs 1,437-crore howitzer deal signed in 1986 between India and Swedish arms maker Bofors.

The CBI had alleged that the Hinduja brothers received illegal payments connected to the contract. Investigators alleged that Bofors paid nearly Rs 64 crore in kickbacks and that secret Swiss bank code names, including Lotus and Tulip, were linked to the Hinduja family.

In 2005, the Delhi High Court quashed the criminal proceedings against the brothers. That decision was subsequently challenged, with the matter remaining pending before the Supreme Court until Thursday’s dismissal.