Poor paperwork helps navy secret leak accused
The bumbling ways of the Central Bureau of Investigation have yet again damaged national security interests. Thanks to the agency's incompetence, Mr Ravi Shankaran, the prime accused in the naval war room leak case, will not be extradited to India from the UK, for the time being. This is despite the fact that UK Home Secretary Mary Theresa had signed Mr Shankaran's extradition order in March 2013. At that time, the accused was allowed to appeal to the England and Wales High Court, which, on Tuesday, ruled that there was no prima facie evidence against Mr Shankaran. At the crux of this decision is the contentious email, containing secret documents leaked from the naval operation room, that was allegedly sent by former Commander Vijendra Rana (later fired from service) to the email ID ‘vicbranson@aol.com'. Mr MP Khushwaha, a former employee of the accused, had testified to the CBI that the email was used by his boss. And this testimony was the only direct piece of evidence, linking Mr Shankaran to the leaked documents, that was presented by the CBI in the UK court. However, because the CBI had not cared, callously enough, to get Mr Khushwaha's signature on the statement, the High Court threw it out, as there was no “endorsement of truth, nor indeed any warranty that the witness has read and understood the statement.”
On its part, the CBI has underplayed the UK High Court's ruling and claimed that it is not a setback to its case. The agency is focussing on the authenticity of the email, which has been challenged by the defence's technical experts. But that is a different argument altogether. Even if the CBI is able to prove that the email is genuine, how will it link the email to Mr Shankaran, without Mr Khushwaha's testimonyIJ Anyway, even that testimony is “far too slender a basis” for extradition, and there were “other avenues by which the Indian Government could have sought to establish the link between the name Vic Branson and the appellant none of which... they managed to use,” as the High Court has observed. The court also factored into its decision, the six years Indian authorities took to issue bail to the other defendants who were arrested in 2006. The time factor was important to UK authorities because the CBI, when requesting Mr Shankaran's extradition, had assured them it will not oppose a bail application by the accused. Unfortunately, the CBI's handling of this case is replete with such errors which not only underline the agency's inefficiency but raise suspicions of a possible state-sponsored cover-up. How else did Mr Shankaran escape to Europe in 2006 even though the CBI had cancelled his passport and Interpol had issued a Red Corner Notice against himIJ