The bench of Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justices SK Kaul and KM Joseph have finally put to rest the legal side of the controversy related to the Rafale fighter jet deal. Pronouncing its judgment on a batch of PILs filed by three advocates and two former Union Ministers, Arun Shourie and Yashwant Sinha, the Supreme Court of India dismissed all petitions stating that there was no reason to interfere in the Rafale deal on the basis of allegations that were based on 'perceptions'. Whether it was related to the deal price, the selection of the offsets partner by the foreign vendors, or for the need for a SC monitored probe, the SC gave an 'all clear' verdict. The three-judge bench, in a unanimous 29-page detailed judgment, said that they were satisfied with the procurement process and that it did not find any reason to interfere. They have said that former French President Hollande's remarks were no basis for judicial review. The apex court had consciously confined its scrutiny to reasonableness of the decision-making process, absence of mala fides or favoritism, popularly referred to as 'Wednesbury Principle'. Opposition parties have put their legal experts to dissect the judgment with a fine-tooth comb. Some are questioning the mention of CAG audit report that is said to have been submitted to the PAC. Any proposed review petition would have to go to the same bench, as such many feel will not be advisable.