1. While Justice KM Joseph did agree with the other two judges on the Rafale verdict, he did state that the petitioners were at liberty to approach the CBI which could investigate the matter after permission from the govt - (this is my understanding).

2. ''... in a Review Petition, the petitioners cannot succeed. However, it is my view that the judgment sought to be reviewed, would not stand in the way of the first respondent 91 in Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 298 of 2018 from taking action on Exhibit P1-complaint ...(more)

3. ''... in accordance with law and subject to first respondent obtaining previous approval under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act.''

4. Any legal luminary is welcome to enlighten me on this statement by Justice Joseph. Assuming I am correct, it means that the avenue taken by Mr Bhushan and the others to point out infirmities in the Rafale procurement may not have been correct.

5. The correct route may have been to approach the CBI though realistically, I doubt any government would be willing to open up classified defence files to anyone on the basis of a complaint letter.

6. In fact, the main body of the order (agreed upon by all judges) clearly states the petitioners may have chosen the wrong avenue as follows (more).

7. ''It was the petitioners’ decision to have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India fully conscious of the limitation of the contours of the scrutiny and not to take recourse to other remedies as may be available ... (more)

8. ''... The petitioners cannot be permitted to state that having so taken recourse to this remedy, they want an adjudication process which is really different from what is envisaged under the provisions invoked by them.''

9. I welcome views on this particular thread.