A powerful civil society group has moved the Supreme Court (SC) seeking audit of the accounts of India’s premier internal intelligence agencies: the Intelligence Bureau (IB for internal intelligence), the Research and Analysis Wing (R&AW for external intelligence) and the National Technical Research Organisation (NTRO, the eavesdropping specialist).

This is the first time in independent India that these agencies have been subjected to scrutiny of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in the apex court.

The PIL (full text here) has been filed by Prashant Bhushan wearing his civil liberties hat of the Centre for Public Interest Litigation (CPIL). It uses secondary sources like articles and memoirs of former intelligence officers alleging massive corruption, political interference and misuse within these agencies. It is argued that money drawn from the Consolidated Fund of India falls 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 Security Advisor (NSA) of the charge of coordinating the intelligence functions by creating another position of the National Intelligence Advisor (NIA). Similarly, directions have been sought to de-link R&AW from the Cabinet Secretariat, into an independent entity.

The other key plea of the PIL is to set up a mechanism under which chiefs of IB, R&AW and the NTRO, depose before a committee of Parliamentarians at least once every three months, none in the committee being ministers of the Union. If the Members of Parliament on this oversight committee demand details that the chiefs are hesitant to give, the PIL wants the apex court to create a mechanism where the Prime Minister can be invoked.
The regulation sought is supposed to be in line with the supervisory mechanisms available in US and the UK and was also strongly proposed by vice-president Hamid Ansari at the R N Kao Memorial Lecture about two years ago. The CPIL has also demanded that retired SC judge be appointed as Ombudsman, who must give an annual report to the Prime Minister. Another committee of eminent citizens is espoused, whose job would be to give a report to the President.

Thus far, IB, R&AW, and NTRO do not function under legislative cover and oversight. They were all created through an executive order of the government, not an Act of Parliament.

Apparently, Bhushan had written to the government on the situation a few months back, but claims got no reply. The government’s silence has 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 as respondents!

Manish Tewari, present minister of state for Information and broadcasting, also had piloted a private member bill on the subject suggesting a detailed oversight mechanism. The fate of private member bills being what it is, government has little to show itself in glory on the subject. A robust analysis of the security architecture by the Naresh Chandra Committee, comprising among others, former heads of some of the agencies under scrutiny, gathers dust. The wisdom is already in the media in large part, but in the absence of an official version it cannot be x-rayed in detail. The NSA secretariat has been tasked to process the recommendations.

Bhushan has obviously taken the public discourse to another level by not just seeking parliamentary oversight of the intelligence but also CAG audit. Considering the nature of a CAG audit and the definite need for operational secrecy of the intelligence function, it is to be seen how this suggestion is received legally and intellectually.

(Tweets @therohitbansal)