The Congress party on Sunday demanded a ‘recall’ of the Supreme Court’s judgment on the Rafale fighter jets deal that seemingly gave a clean chit to the government on the alleged scam. The Congress said the controversy over the CAG report merits a retrial and said the government should be tried for perjury.

"The Congress is of the considered view that the courts are not the right place to adjudicate this matter. Only a PAC probe can take this to conclusion. Yet, some serious issues have come to light. The government has given false information and misled the courts. That has affected the judgement. The CAG report is not even out yet. It has not been given to Parliament. The government's application in court shows they have committed contempt of court. They said it was a mistake by the court," Congress leader Anand Sharma told reporters at the party office here.

"If the PM has not done anything wrong, why is he scared of facing Joint Parliamentary Committee? Entire BJP should go to Kumbh along with the Prime Minister and wash their sins," he said.

"We urge the Supreme Court to recall its judgement on Rafale and issue notices of perjury and contempt of court to the government... Is the government trying to say the Supreme Court doesn't understand grammar? Do our judges not understand the English language? The SC should recall the judgement."

The government had moved the Supreme Court on Saturday seeking correction in the judgment about reference to CAG and PAC.

The Centre told the top court that reference in its order on the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) report and Parliament's Public Accounts Committee (PAC), was "misinterpretation" of its note and has "resulted in a controversy in the public domain".

PAC chairman Mallikarjun Kharge has denied seeing the CAG report on Rafale jets.

The judgment on Friday had mentioned that pricing details of the deal being shared with CAG which in turn shared its report with Parliament's PAC. In its application, the Centre said the two sentences in paragraph 25 of the judgment appeared to have been based on the note submitted by it along with the pricing details in a sealed cover, but indicated the words used by the court lent a different meaning.

The Centre made it clear that it did not say that the CAG report was examined by PAC or a redacted portion was placed before Parliament.

It clarified that the note had said the government "has already shared" the price details with the CAG, which was written in past tense and "is factually correct".

However, where it was stated by the Centre in the note that the report of the CAG "is" examined by the PAC, was a description of the procedure which is followed in the normal course, but in the judgement 'is' was replaced with the words 'has been', according to the application.

Similarly, the statement that only a redacted version of the report "is" placed before Parliament, was referred to in the judgment as "only a redacted portion of the report was placed before the Parliament, and was in public domain", the Centre said and sought necessary changes in the apex court order.