In the writ filed by Capt Kumar, he has submitted to the court that Shankaran is like an adopted son of Prakash, "who has only one daughter", and that on his Delhi visits, Shankaran stayed at the naval chief's official residence. And that despite his firm getting blacklisted due to a blast in INS Jyoti in 1996, caused by faulty equipment supplied by his firm, Shankaran still did business with the navy. According to the petition, "It is this Pandora's box that would have opened if an inquiry would have taken place."
In the writ, Kumar has stated that he was never charged with any offence and was called only as a witness to the BOI headed by Rear Admiral Ganesh Mahadevan, which the navy cited to dismiss the three officers. The Navy Act clearly stipulates that "full opportunity should be afforded to such person of being present throughout the inquiry and of making any statement and of giving any evidence he may wish to make or give and of cross-examining any witness whose evidence in his opinion affects him and producing any witness in his defence." Of course, the navy is tight-lipped and did not even accept a questionnaire on the issue, saying the case was subjudice.
Interestingly, the navy used both routes, of the BOI and the President's pleasure doctrine, which has raised doubts about the navy's eagerness to close the case. The defence ministry claimed on October 28 that the BOI has established that there has been an information leakage. But Kumar's writ claims he was never allowed to be present during the BOI proceedings or given an opportunity to present evidence or cross-examine witnesses.
The case is indeed unique. Since July 31, when the story was broken by a Mumbai daily, naval officers had consistently told the media in off-the-record briefings that the three officers were involved in a spying racket. And that they compromised the high-security Directorate of Naval Operations that plans which ship should be where and when during a war. Initial press reports were categorical about war plans getting leaked from the DNO. It is indeed a fact that in the DNO, 'top secret' files are prepared on water-marked sheets of paper using computers linked to each other through the local area network, but not hooked to the net. And the government has admitted that the pen drive seized from the IAF officer had classified information from the DNO.
By dismissing the three officers, the navy has let them walk free to share all they know with those interested. Kumar was a high-flier who was twice part of the delegation on the Sir Creek talks between India and Pakistan. He had always landed plum postings like commanding a ship, being posted in the Directorate of Naval Intelligence and then became the director of naval operations. Even in his worst nightmare he would not have expected to be waylaid by his naval intelligence colleagues outside his Asiad Village house and blindfolded and taken to an undisclosed location to be interrogated by the raw and the Intelligence Bureau.
Kumar has dared the navy to prove its charges against him. It will soon be clear whether the commercial espionage story was all about a cover-up operation to protect Shankaran and his influential relatives. Or is it about a succession war in the navy that led certain officers to plant stories against their chief, so that they can at least aspire for the top job in case the incumbent resigns a tainted man.
