CORRUPTION IN RAW

CORRUPTION IN RAW

On 16/11/2007 I submitted complaint to CVC, against harassment by RAW for exposing corruption in the agency. On 17/11/2007, a letter was sent to the CVC giving information about instances of corruption in RAW and SPG by Shri Vivek Garg of Advocates International. I also met the CVC in his office and requested him to take action on both complaints. Subsequently, a delegation comprising Prashant Bhushan, Arvind Kejriwal and Admiral Tahliani also met the CVC in this regard. However, al that the CVC did was to transfer my complaint to Cabinet Secretariat.

Not hearing anything about the complaint for almost six months, I filed an application under RTI Act with Cabinet Secretariat, asking for information on action taken on the complaint. When the Cabinet Secretariat refused to provide any information, claiming that they are exempted vide Section 24 of the RTI Act, I filed a complaint with the CIC. After several hearings, the CIC issued an order on 29/11/2008. (I was not permitted to attend the hearing, on the ground that RAW has to produce classified documents). Concluding that the complaint of to the CVC was an allegation of corruption, and hence not exempted, the CIC ordered the Cabinet Secretariat to inform me within ten days whether any investigation or enquiry was carried out in respect of the complaint.  

            The CPIO, Cabinet Secretariat gave a reply on 18/12/2008, intimating that no action has been taken on the ground it is already under investigation by the CBI and any further action would lead to multiplicity of investigation and  impede the process of investigation.  This plea had earlier been given in the hearing on 25/11/ 2008, but had been rejected by the CIC. It also informed that no investigation or enquiry had been carried out since the department was of the view that it is not called for. I filed an application for review before the CIC. I contended that the repeated assertion of the Cabinet Secretariat (SR) that the information cannot be given because the case is sub judice and will affect the case filed against me is a blatant disregard of the orders of the Commission and amounts to contempt, which deserves exemplary punishment.

The reply of the Cabinet Secretariat intimating that no investigation or enquiry had been carried out on the allegations of corruption was incorrect. In fact, an investigation had been ordered in January 2008 by the National Security Adviser, into the allegations of corruption mentioned in the book. According to media reports, the investigation was carried out by Shri G.B.S. Sidhu, a former special secretary of RAW. This was reported in the article titled double checking by Saikat Datta in the Outlook magazine of January28, 2008 as well as the article titled India's intel chief lacking intelligence by Claude Salhani, Editor, Middle East Times, published on February 06, 2008. I filed an RTI application with the Cabinet Secretariat (SR), asking for details of the inquiry done by Sidhu and its results. Since no reply was received, I filed another complaint before the CIC.

Since both cases related to corruption in RAW, the CIC decided to club them together. In an order dated 22/2/2010, the CIC dismissed the case. The order states: “We have been informed by the present NSA Shri Menon by e mail of 21.2.10 ( a copy of which has been placed on the file) that there is “no record of NSA ordering an enquiry on allegations in the book.”

            The reply of the NSA is obviously wrong or at least cleverly worded. It is possible that the enquiry was ordered by the previous NSA, Shri MK Narayanan verbally, and no official record was kept. Several ex RAW officers have confirmed that an enquiry was indeed held, and all officers of the level of Joint Secy were asked to read the report. A seminar was held in the Nehru Memorial Library on 19/2/2010, on the need for parliamentary control over the intelligence agencies. Among the speakers were two MPs (Manish Tiwari and Owaisi), an Ex DIB (Ajit Doval), an ex Spec Secy of RAW (Rana Banerjee),  Maj Gen VK Singh and Saikat Datta who had written the article in Outlook about the Sidhu enquiry.  During the question and answer session, Rana Banerjee confirmed that the enquiry by Sidhu had been held.

So, who is lying? The NSA and RAW, who say that the enquiry was not held, or the journalists who reported it and the ex RAW officers who confirm that it was?

11 March 2010