New Delhi, Oct. 25: The Supreme Court today issued notices to the Centre directing it to file an affidavit on the action taken regarding alleged irregularities in defence purchases during and after the Kargil war.

The court?s action was in response to a PIL, which sought a probe into all defence purchases since 1991, seeking to lift the veil of secrecy shrouding such purchases in the name of defence secrets.

The PIL mentioned the Comptroller and Auditor General?s (CAG) report, which had also detailed certain irregularities in defence purchases. Today?s notices were specific to the Kargil war purchases as detailed in the CAG report.

The post-Kargil war purchases include deals for coffins to carry bodies of soldiers, in which corruption charges were levelled by the then Congress-led Opposition. The CAG report also indicated this.

The issue gains a wider canvas as defence deals under three regimes ? the P.V. Narasimha Rao-led Congress government (1991-96) in which Sharad Pawar was the defence minister, the United Front regime (1996-98) with Mulayam Singh Yadav as the defence minister and the BJP-led NDA regime during which (1998-2004) Fernandes was the defence minister ? come under judicial purview.

Amicus curiae in the case, senior counsel Rakesh Dwivedi submitted a note to the court in which he said that the court had powers to seek the action taken report from the executive on the basis of the CAG report.

During the Kargil war, an estimated Rs 2,300 crore was spent for emergency purchases but the PIL alleged that several defence deals were cleared on the pretext of the war.

The apex court bench, which issued the notices, has referred the matter to attorney-general Milon K. Banerjee for his personal appearance and reply.

The PIL contended that the entire gamut of defence purchases should come under the purview of the apex judiciary and sought a direction to make public the defence accounts by lifting the veil of secrecy in the name of ?defence secrets?.

The PIL relied heavily on the CAG?s report placed and debated in Parliament. The CAG had found various irregularities in the defence purchases during that period including the purchase of the coffins.

The PIL referred to George Fernandes? refusal in Parliament to answer questions on procurement of defence equipment from Israel and contended that in the name of ?defence secrets? successive governments were indulging in corruption and that such purchases should not remain ?holy cow? anymore. It sought a direction from the court so that accounts of defence purchases are laid in both the Houses and come to public knowledge. ?This would promote transparency in defence purchases,? the petition argued.

The petition said corruption was eating up the vitals of the country and more so in defence-related subjects as the existing ?secrecy clause? made it impossible to even know the type and amount of purchases.