NEW DELHI – Indian Air Force Intelligence put an Air Defence Directorateofficer who was allegedly having an extra-marital relationship, underelectronic surveillance. What emerged shook up the security establishment.
Based on the information it had collected, Air Intelligence raided the homeof Wing Commander S L Surve that April, and allegedly recovered a pen drivethat contained documents related to India’s maritime preparedness and plansfor the next 20 years.
Naval Intelligence was informed, and the leak was traced to a computer inthe Maritime Operations Centre of the Directorate of Naval Operations inSouth Block. Thus was born the Naval War Room Leak episode.
The Navy conducted an in-house investigation and, in December 2005, fixedresponsibility on three war room officers — Commander Vijendra Rana of theMarine Commando Force, and navigation and operations specialists CommanderVinod Kumar Jha and Captain Kashyap Kumar.
All three officers were sacked without a trial, using a provision underArticle 311 of the Constitution, which allows summary action in case “thePresident or the Governor, as the case may be, is satisfied that in theinterest of the security of the State, it is not expedient to hold suchinquiry”.
The investigations revealed that the sensitive information, running intoover 7,000 pages, was being leaked to arms dealders and middlemen. Keyamong them were alleged to be retired Naval officers Ravi Shankaran andKulbhushan Prashar, and arms dealer Abhishek Verma. Shankaran is a relativeof the then Chief of the Naval Staff, Admiral Arun Prakash.
*CBI steps in*
The probe and action was initially limited to Naval Headquarters. However,after media reports began to suggest that the alleged leak was linked tothe Scorpene submarines deal in which, too, Verma was involved as amiddleman, the government handed the investigations to the CBI in 2006.
CBI registered an FIR and raided over 20 locations connected to Shankaranand Parashar. The latter was arrested in April 2006 as he landed in Delhifrom London. Jha, Rana, Verma and Wg Cdr Surve, too, were arrested, apartfrom Rajrani Jaiswal, a woman with whom Surve was allegedly associated.Jaiswal was not chargesheeted, however. Kashyap Kumar was neither arrestednor chargesheeted.
Based on Parashar’s revelation that he had met Shankaran in London, CBImoved to get his passport cancelled. A warrant was issued through ScotlandYard, and an Interpol Red Corner Notice was put out, too, but Shankaranremained elusive.
*The documents*
In its chargesheet, the CBI said it had unearthed the following documents:
* A file containing a war game marked ‘Top Secret’, based on inputs sent toNaval HQ by Indian intelligence
* Details of the Navy’s operations, including its fleet and submarines, forthe next 20 years — information that could translate into windfall gainsfor any defence equipment company
* Details of “vulnerable areas” and “vulnerable points” in India’s airdefence network
* A brief on Sir Creek, marked ‘Secret’, for the Deputy Chief of the NavalStaff ahead of his talks with Pakistan
* The standard operating procedure for the Pechora missile project
* Details of the joint response by the Army, Navy and Air Force in case ofa Pakistani ingress in Kutch sector
* Files relating to Sir Creek and the Navy’s positioning in this disputedterritory
The chargesheet, filed in July 2006, noted: “This information for bigmultinationals engaged in defence supplies implies planning their businessand networking strategies for the next 20 years, because this gives them aclear insight as to what the requirements of Indian Navy would be in thisarea, hence affording a market edge. The worth of this information, whentranslated into currency could run into billions of dollars.” The CBI alsosaid that such top secret information in the hands of the enemy couldseriously compromise national security.
*The long chase*
To unravel the conspiracy, however, CBI needed to interrogate Shankaran.After he went absconding from the UK, investigators tracked him throughtechnical surveillance across Europe, before he gave himself up in the UKin April 2010. The CBI began extradition proceedings through the CrownProsecution Service of London in the Westminster Court, where former liquorbaron Vijay Mallya is currently fighting an extradition case.
In March 2013, the court cleared the way for Shankaran’s extradition toIndia. He challenged the decision, and in April, 2014, the England andWales High Court upheld his appeal, observing that the CBI evidence was“doubtful”, and that the pace of the trial in India was so slow, it hadtaken the other accused six years to secure bail. The court pointed totechnical problems with testimonies against Shankaran, and noted that theNavy had, in response to a 2008 RTI query, denied having searched CommanderRana’s residence. It also found that CBI had failed to establish that VicBranson, who received an email with details of BSF operations in Sir Creek,was Shankaran. The court observed that these raised “fundamental doubts onthe provenance of key evidence”.
CBI failed to appeal against the order in the stipulated window of 14 days,apparently because it failed to get a legal opinion from the government intime.
The remaining accused in the case are currently facing trial in a specialCBI court. A plea by Rana and Jha to overturn their ouster from the Navywas rejected by the Supreme Court in February last year. – The IndianExpress