A powerful civil society group has moved the Supreme Court(SC) seeking audit of the accounts of India’s premier internal intelligenceagencies: the Intelligence Bureau (IB for internal intelligence), the Researchand Analysis Wing (R&AW for external intelligence) and the NationalTechnical Research Organisation (NTRO, the eavesdropping specialist).
This is the first time in independent India that theseagencies have been subjected to scrutiny of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL)in the apex court.
The PIL has been filed by Prashant Bhushan wearing his civilliberties hat of the Centre for Public Interest Litigation (CPIL). It usessecondary sources like articles and memoirs of former intelligence officersalleging massive corruption, political interference and misuse within theseagencies. It is argued that money drawn from the Consolidated Fund of Indiafalls within the mandate of Section 14 of the CAG Act.
Bhushan, now a core member of India Against Corruption(IAC), has also requested the apex court to divest the National SecurityAdvisor (NSA) of the charge of coordinating the intelligence functions bycreating another position of the National Intelligence Advisor (NIA).Similarly, directions have been sought to de-link R&AW from the CabinetSecretariat, into an independent entity.
The other key plea of the PIL is to set up a mechanism underwhich chiefs of IB, R&AW and the NTRO, depose before a committee ofParliamentarians at least once every three months, none in the committee beingministers of the Union. If the Members of Parliament on this oversightcommittee demand details that the chiefs are hesitant to give, the PIL wantsthe apex court to create a mechanism where the Prime Minister can be invoked.
The regulation sought is supposed to be in line with thesupervisory mechanisms available in US and the UK and was also stronglyproposed by vice-president Hamid Ansari at the R N Kao Memorial Lecture abouttwo years ago. The CPIL has also demanded that retired SC judge be appointed asOmbudsman, who must give an annual report to the Prime Minister. Anothercommittee of eminent citizens is espoused, whose job would be to give a reportto the President.
Thus far, IB, R&AW, and NTRO do not function underlegislative cover and oversight. They were all created through an executiveorder of the government, not an Act of Parliament.
Apparently, Bhushan had written to the government on thesituation a few months back, but claims got no reply. The government’s silencehas proved to be a key justification to seek intervention of the apex court.The cabinet secretary, the home secretary and the NSA have been cited asrespondents!
Manish Tewari, present minister of state for Information andbroadcasting, also had piloted a private member bill on the subject suggestinga detailed oversight mechanism. The fate of private member bills being what itis, government has little to show itself in glory on the subject. A robustanalysis of the security architecture by the Naresh Chandra Committee,comprising among others, former heads of some of the agencies under scrutiny, gathersdust. The wisdom is already in the media in large part, but in the absence ofan official version it cannot be x-rayed in detail. The NSA secretariat hasbeen tasked to process the recommendations.
Bhushan has obviously taken the public discourse to anotherlevel by not just seeking parliamentary oversight of the intelligence but alsoCAG audit. Considering the nature of a CAG audit and the definite need foroperational secrecy of the intelligence function, it is to be seen how thissuggestion is received legally and intellectually.
in association with Governance Now
