The Official Secrets Act, which the Modi government wanted to use against the Rafale ‘stolen’ papers, is a law that punishes breaches of national security.
The jets were similar to what India is buying. IAF wants to know what kind of training Pakistani pilots or engineers on secondment to Qatar received. French ambassador says fake news.
As the Supreme Court takes up the review pleas, it will also examine the selection of Anil Ambani's Reliance Defence as an offsets partner in the Rafale deal.
The party in its manifesto for the elections also said it will take determined steps to bring back scamsters who left the country and initiate legal proceedings against them.
Compulsion magnifies the risk of function creep. Future updates could quietly expand the app’s capabilities or enable background telemetry far beyond users’ expectations.
Order for 87 MALE drones will be split between 2 Indian firms in 64:36 ratio to ensure there are 2 independent manufacturing lines with at least 60% indigenous components.
The India-South Africa series-defining fact is the catastrophic decline of Indian red ball cricket where a visiting team can mock us with the 'grovel' word.
A careful reading of both the judgments will not lead us to a conclusion that the Official Secrets Act has been totally overridden by RTL. Mr Prashant Bhushan says that the said law has become unconstitutional but at the same time he concedes that Section 5 specifies which information can be revealed without compromising the security of the state. Thus, there is a contradiction in his argument. Interestingly, both the judgement underline the fact that the documents have already been published. Thus it is illogical to state that what is available to the public cannot be examined by courts. The judgements have passed orders on admissibility without expressing any firm opinion in this regard. Secondly, both the judgements maintain that touchstone of admissibility of an evidence is its relevance. But relevance cannot be examined unless documents are admitted and seen by the court! The majority judgement specifically asserts in the last paragraph that merits and relevance of the documents produced by the petitioners will have to be examined. Thus, the case had just begun and is wide open.
The last point is regarding violation of the Secrecy Law, which is still in vogue. Yes, the documents are admissible, but the Law has been violated. What about it ? People may argue that it was done with the holy motive of exposing corruption. May be perhaps, may be perhaps not, who knows ? There is a possibility that this could have been sponsored by a competitor company who did not get the contract and there could be illegal transactions for violating the Official Secrets Act. Should we investigate or ignore, forget and simply condone it? This throws poor light on the state of affairs in the defence ministry. Tomorrow anybody could breach the secrecy and obtain sensitive information and the nation may lose a battle or a war due to such an act. Is it acceptable?
Arrest of Julian Assange of Wikileaks is a very similar case. Here also, security secrets (diplomatic cables, etc.) were leaked by Assange, and the US has indicted him today. There are lively discussions going on about the publishers of the leaked information. Are they criminals? What about the freedom of press? The US government hasn’t charged them for publishing the security secrets.
The ministry that was custodian of the rafale documents is in a position similar to that of Assange. How were the documents stolen from the ministry? The government should fix the responsibility on the ministry employees for dereliction of their duties to safeguard the documents. The publishers who published the stolen information, and the people who used that information as evidence in the court go free, as they haven’t violated any law.
The focus needs to be more sharply defined. Genuine military or diplomatic secrets. Under the RTI Act, file nothings are now accessible to the public, including those pertaining to decisions of the Cabinet. The recent rollback on RTI is unfortunate.
My first comment is not a truth, but my personal prospect. I have not given a single curse on the Google.
I want to play the role of a Vedic Rishi and it is my future plan to play the role of Devta OR Asur.
My first comment is
I am not an Asur and I am Shivam by name and A Devta by birth.
A careful reading of both the judgments will not lead us to a conclusion that the Official Secrets Act has been totally overridden by RTL. Mr Prashant Bhushan says that the said law has become unconstitutional but at the same time he concedes that Section 5 specifies which information can be revealed without compromising the security of the state. Thus, there is a contradiction in his argument. Interestingly, both the judgement underline the fact that the documents have already been published. Thus it is illogical to state that what is available to the public cannot be examined by courts. The judgements have passed orders on admissibility without expressing any firm opinion in this regard. Secondly, both the judgements maintain that touchstone of admissibility of an evidence is its relevance. But relevance cannot be examined unless documents are admitted and seen by the court! The majority judgement specifically asserts in the last paragraph that merits and relevance of the documents produced by the petitioners will have to be examined. Thus, the case had just begun and is wide open.
The last point is regarding violation of the Secrecy Law, which is still in vogue. Yes, the documents are admissible, but the Law has been violated. What about it ? People may argue that it was done with the holy motive of exposing corruption. May be perhaps, may be perhaps not, who knows ? There is a possibility that this could have been sponsored by a competitor company who did not get the contract and there could be illegal transactions for violating the Official Secrets Act. Should we investigate or ignore, forget and simply condone it? This throws poor light on the state of affairs in the defence ministry. Tomorrow anybody could breach the secrecy and obtain sensitive information and the nation may lose a battle or a war due to such an act. Is it acceptable?
Arrest of Julian Assange of Wikileaks is a very similar case. Here also, security secrets (diplomatic cables, etc.) were leaked by Assange, and the US has indicted him today. There are lively discussions going on about the publishers of the leaked information. Are they criminals? What about the freedom of press? The US government hasn’t charged them for publishing the security secrets.
The ministry that was custodian of the rafale documents is in a position similar to that of Assange. How were the documents stolen from the ministry? The government should fix the responsibility on the ministry employees for dereliction of their duties to safeguard the documents. The publishers who published the stolen information, and the people who used that information as evidence in the court go free, as they haven’t violated any law.
The focus needs to be more sharply defined. Genuine military or diplomatic secrets. Under the RTI Act, file nothings are now accessible to the public, including those pertaining to decisions of the Cabinet. The recent rollback on RTI is unfortunate.