A Bundle Of Contradictions

The naval war room leak case has had many strange twists and turns. Here's how thedefence ministry and the navy have tied themselves in knots...

Updated on: 7 February 2024 6:07 pm

Then	Now
Defence minister Pranab Mukherjee in a February 12 TV interview says that "leakage of official secrets does not mean treason". He says no action needs to be taken against the civilians involved in the case since the information is of "commercial nature".	Pranab Mukherjee informs the Rajya Sabha on March 21 that "classified" information was indeed leaked from the navy’s war room. He announces a CBI inquiry and framing of "criminal charges" against the officers and the civilians involved.
A September 29, 2005, press release of the ministry of defence (MoD) states categorically that no information linked to "operational matters" was leaked	The Indian navy, in an affidavit to the Delhi High Court, talks of a pen drive containing "highly classified information" from the naval war room being recovered by intelligence agencies
An October 28, 2005, press release from Naval HQ states that three officers were dismissed invoking the presidential pleasure doctrine	The navy denies using the presidential pleasure doctrine in an affidavit to the Delhi High Court
The navy, in its affidavit to the Delhi High Court, says the co-accused in the war room leak case were civilians, including foreigners who could not be acted against by the navy	The CBI has registered cases against nine Indians but has not named any foreigner
Ravi Shankaran, in a signed press release dated April 2, 2006, claims he has no direct or indirect link with the war room leak.	CBI registers a case on April 5, 2006, against Shankaran under the Official Secrets Act and also charges him with criminal conspiracy. The ministry of external affairs revokes his passport and finally Interpol issues a Red Corner notice. On April 12, media reports say that Shankaran can’t be traced.