No to Intelligence Audit Plea: The Supreme Court’s Dilemma

Reports of rampant corruption and their misuse by the ruling party prompted the PIL.

The dismissal on Tuesday of a PIL filed by the Centre for Public Interest Litigation by the Supreme Court will surely dishearten those who have been fighting for accountability and transparency in the functioning of our intelligence agencies – RAW, IB and NTRO.

Crusaders argue that Parliament must debate the desirability and scope of agencies’ operations before making budgetary provisions. They also call for their expenditure to be scrutinised by the CAG to ensure that funds are properly utilised and not diverted for political purposes.

No Interference

• Supreme Court dismissed a PIL seeking accountability and transparency in intelligence agencies - RAW, IB and NTRO.
  
• Reports of rampant corruption and their misuse by the ruling party prompted Centre for Public Interest Litigation to file the PIL.
  
• PIL argues that Parliament must debate the desirability and scope of agencies’ operations before making budgetary provisions and subject their expenditure to the scrutiny of CAG.
  
• Supreme Court may have rejected the PIL in a quandary over whether MPs with divergent views on national issues, can be trusted with covert activities of these agencies.

Fake Operations And Corruption

There is no denying that a number of officers routinely make money from fake operations and ‘bogus’ sources in RAW. Those who handle purchase of equipment have historically filled their coffers with impunity. In recent years, a few chiefs have also been privy to the loot. NTRO’s record in this regard has been most dismal.

In a PIL filed in the Supreme Court in 2014, it was submitted that electronic and satellite communication systems, worth crores, were purchased, high value technical projects commissioned, massive civil works executed and irregular recruitment carried out without any administrative or financial approval. These cases merely point to the malaise and not to the enormity of filth.

It is also a fact that IB is used by the ruling party to know about party dissidents and opposition leaders, get a sense of the prospect of winning elections and hold background checks on adversaries. It is, however, doubtful if the government goes entirely by their reports when other reliable and prompt means of procuring information are available.

There is a belief, albeit erroneous, that RAW works as an instrument to further the ruling party’s political interests. Morarji Desai dallied with this mistaken notion and cut down RAW’s strength, budget and area of operation, causing an irreparable damage to the agency’s network of sources.

There is another area, a more potent one, which suffers due to lack of transparency. The secrecy of a ghetto that prevails within the four walls, allows chiefs to promote cronies and run their set-up by diktat. Voices of bright officers, who tend to argue, disagree and come up with fresh ideas that are so essential in an organisation in which no two operations are similar, are invariably stifled.

Apex Court’s Reservations

What may have led the Supreme Court to reject the PIL is whether raucous and ill-informed MPs, who hold completely divergent views on all national issues, can be trusted with agencies’ covert activities. For example, will these MPs ever reach a consensus on eliminating Hurriyat leaders, terrorists, naxalites, insurgents and their sympathisers through extra-judicial means, settling non-Kashmiris in J&K stealthily, foisting governments of choice in the neighbourhood and creating unlimited capacity to subvert, terrorise and destruct ‘inimical elements’?

Despite all their failings, these agencies are still the best bet to hold intelligence secrets. Every other institution is porous and there is no document that you cannot access for a price. If MPs begin discussing a source or an operation, it will endanger the lives of sources, incapacitate efforts to raise assets in future and adversely affect India’s foreign relations.

In any case, the need for procuring equipment and their technical parameters cannot be discussed without giving away our operational priorities to hostile agencies and helping them to take counter measures. Also, if critical devices that have to be bought off the shelf for operational reasons and on a single tender basis which is neither procedurally correct nor competitively priced will surely invite demands for investigation, once it is made public.

The Supreme Court must have been in a quandary while delivering the judgement because if it rejected the PIL, it would amount to tolerating corruption in the larger interests of national security.

This problem can be addressed to some extent if we choose the right kind of people to lead these agencies after a thorough background check of their competence, acquisitions and family liabilities. The government should also consider constituting a Peer Review Board of five retired senior offices of the concerned agencies with impeccable record of personal and operational probity. They may be asked to recommend names for appointment as chiefs and special secretaries and hold every 18 months, a review of all operational, procurement and administrative decisions taken by the officers. The modality of choosing board members can be worked out by the government in consultation with veterans of the intelligence community.

(The writer is a former Special Secretary, Cabinet Secretariat)

Also Read: Intelligence Accountability? First, Let our MPs be More Mature