A tribunal called the selection “manifestly arbitrary.” The High Court has stayed that finding for now. But the questions raised by the appointment go far beyond one individual — they strike at the credibility of decision-making inside India’s strategic defence establishment.
There are moments when an institutional decision becomes bigger than the individual who receives the appointment.
The appointment of JR Joshi as DG, BrahMos is one such moment.
This is not merely a dispute between two scientists. It is a test of whether India’s strategic institutions still understand the difference between discretion and arbitrariness, authority and accountability, eligibility and merit.
And the most uncomfortable fact is not an allegation made by a critic.
It is what the CAT Hyderabad Bench, itself recorded in its judgment of December 29, 2025.
The Tribunal — a bench of Dr. Lata Baswaraj Patne and Varun Kul Kaumudi — quashed the appointment and directed the MOD and DRDO to reconsider the candidature of Distinguished Scientist Dr. Sivasubramaniam within four weeks, with an interim in-charge arrangement to be made until then. More significantly, the Tribunal concluded that there was “manifest arbitrariness” in the decision-making process.
That finding deserves to be examined — not buried beneath bureaucratic silence.
THE ALPHABETICAL ORDER QUESTION
Three scientists were shortlisted for the post
According to the Tribunal record, the three candidates were awarded identical scores — reportedly 80 marks each — while the Selection Committee forwarded the names to the appointing authority in alphabetical order.
The Tribunal specifically noted that no rule had been shown to justify arranging the recommended names alphabetically.
Stop and think about that.
Alphabetical order may be perfectly reasonable for a telephone directory.
But when the Government of India is choosing the head of a strategically critical organization associated with one of the country’s most important missile programmes, the obvious question is:
Where is the comparative assessment?
Where is the documented reasoning?
Where is the distinction between one equally-scored candidate and another?
Where is the record demonstrating why one scientist was considered more suitable than the others?
A government appointment to a strategic scientific position cannot be reduced to a mathematical exercise in alphabetical arrangement.
It means the questions remain alive.
A HIGH COURT STAY IS NOT A CLEAN CHIT
This distinction is essential.
On January 7, 2026, a Division Bench of the Telangana High Court — Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice G.M. Mohiuddin — granted an interim stay suspending the operation of the CAT’s December 29 order, on petitions filed by both Dr. Joshi and the Union of India. That allowed Dr. Joshi to continue in the post while the legal challenge proceeds.
That is an interim judicial development.
It is not a judicial declaration that every
It tells senior scientists that years of service and peer recognition may be secondary to internal equations.
And most dangerously, it creates the perception that the system can decide first and justify later.
They are pro-DRDO questions.
The danger is not one weak appointment.
The danger is an ecosystem in which people learn that compliance is safer than competence, silence is safer than dissent, and proximity to power is more valuable than technical achievement.
That is how institutions hollow themselves out.
Not overnight.
Not through one scandal.
But through hundreds of small decisions in which the wrong incentive is rewarded.
If the decision was fully justified, publish the reasoning.
If the comparative assessment exists, show that the process was rigorous.
inquiry and due process.
That is how institutions regain credibility.
Not through silence.
Not through intimidation.
Not through selective leaks.
Not through unverified claims presented as fact.
Through evidence;
Some facts that there is no comparison between Dr. Sivasubramaniam and Dr JR Joshi because the DG BrahMos post needs the missile core expertise as they compared Project Director with Project Manager Technical awards with paper awards.
Senior most with junior most
Actual they focused corruption expertise, proximity with vendors, and derailing capacity of projects, bluffing expertise and for most loyalty with super corrupt lobby of ex DRDO stalwarts.
Justifying above
Asked feedback from PD Kusha and LRSAM, Joshi inducted all his Kusha and LRSAM vendors, if any oppose, he did random mass transfer, termination, two employed died with heart attack, about derailing capacity BrahMos production is down 25% after Joshi appointment, pls checked from records.
Best joke of bluffing, she the DRDO tweet regarding production in Lucknow and revenue generation.
There are no full facilities established in Lucknow, what they are doing they are only collecting the main part and war head part from Pilani, Hyderabad and Nasik and fixing the bolts in Lucknow and claiming by billing with GST.
Dr. Joshi, if Honorable Yogi ji gets this info maybe he will send Bulldozer at your door step.
Next if 100 number BrahMos earning revenue nearly 1100 Cr then how many will earn as mentioned 5200 Cr in tweet pls check the balance sheet for confirming the claims.
Regarding loyalty EX DG (BrahMos), Mishra informed to some responsible Philipe person one day before selection that JR Joshi is next DG and myself congratulations to Dr Kamat by what’s up same time one day before selection, his decision in advance so anyone imagine how weakest Chairman was run the DRDO.
Next biggest news that smart DG HR playing efforts to promote himself and Joshi in DS post. As both are in seniority list 31 and 40
Rest senior and competent scientist will get “Baba ji ka Thullu’’
Why because they deserve it, they never raise their voices against this rotten system.
It is a very biter truth of current DRDO.
BRAHMOS DESERVES BETTER
BrahMos deserves leadership selected through competence, credibility, transparency and strategic judgement.
DRDO deserves an HR system that strengthens — not weakens — the scientific establishment.
And India’s taxpayers deserve to know that every rupee spent on strategic defence infrastructure is backed by documentation, engineering discipline and accountability.
The High Court has stayed the operative consequences of that judgment, and the matter continues through the judicial process.
And if something went wrong —
find it, fix it, and hold the responsible people accountable — through due process, not presumption.
Unfortunately, if we looked the DRDO Chief legacy since Arunachalam till date Dr Sameer V Kamat was the weakest chief ever seen by DRDO. He received the crown on the juncture. when Dr G. Satheesh Reddy was unprecedentedly stepped down with unvisible reason for sake of national interest or……
Dr. Kamat treated this prestigious position with great casualness; the proof of this lies in the work he undertook throughout his entire tenure—including two extensions—and the outcomes of those efforts, which are clearly visible in the current state of the DRDO.
There is a difference between occupying a chair and wielding the authority that comes with it. There is a still wider difference between administering an institution and leading one. The tenure of Dr. Samir V. Kamat as Chairman of the Defence Research and Development Organisation demands a hard, unsentimental reckoning — not because DRDO deserves to be diminished, but because DRDO is too important to be allowed to drift.
For decades, DRDO has shouldered one of the most consequential mandates in the Indian national-security establishment: building the technologies on which this country’s strategic autonomy actually depends. From missiles to radars, electronic warfare to aerospace, naval systems to unmanned platforms, its scientists have proven again and again that India possesses the intellectual firepower to solve extraordinarily hard defence problems. But brilliance in the laboratory cannot indefinitely paper over rot in the corridor. And it is in the corridor — not the lab — that the Kamat years raise their sharpest questions.
A MOMENT THAT DEMANDED COURAGE
Kamat took charge in August 2022, inheriting an organisation already under fire for delays, cost overruns and chronic mismanagement. This was not a caretaker’s job. It was a mandate for institutional courage — a call to confront a system choking on procedure, competing fiefdoms and decades of accumulated inertia.
Instead, the question that came to define his chairmanship was blunt and uncomfortable: where was the transformation?
The government’s own high-powered committee, led by K. Vijay Raghavan, was convened to find out. Its verdict was not kind. It found that nearly 60 per cent of project delays traced back to internal failures — including the absence of critical technologies at decisive stages — with the remainder split between shifting service requirements and plain bureaucratic red tape. That finding should have triggered an institutional earthquake. Instead, reform became just one more battlefield inside an organisation already exhausted by them.
Kamat’s tenure did not end with his original term. He was extended — not once, but twice. That fact alone raises the stakes of any honest assessment, because an extension is not a formality. It is a grant of additional trust: more time, more authority, more room to act.
After years at the helm, what measurable transformation did DRDO get in return?
Not speeches. Not committees. Not another round of presentations. Transformation. Did decisions start moving faster? Did accountability get sharper? Did delays actually fall? Did the administrative layers shrink? Did scientists win back the freedom to do science instead of fighting paperwork? Did HR become transparent, litigation shrink, headquarters get leaner, the whole machine get more agile? Did the VijayRaghavan recommendations ever reach the laboratory floor — or did they die somewhere on the way? These are not rhetorical flourishes. They are the only questions that should decide a Chairman’s legacy.
THE REFORM THAT EXPOSED THE SYSTEM
The VijayRaghavan committee was not convened because DRDO was thought to be functioning well. It was convened because the structural rot had become impossible to explain away. Its recommendations touched organisational design, project management, HR, recruitment, industry participation, academic collaboration, accountability and the functioning of DRDO headquarters itself — a genuinely comprehensive blueprint.
And yet implementation stalled. By October 2024, reporting indicated that the major restructuring simply had not happened on the ground, despite round after round of meetings — with resistance from senior officials cited as a central reason for the paralysis.
That is the real story here. Not whether a committee wrote a good report. Whether the leadership had the spine to force it through. A report sitting in a file is not reform. A meeting is not reform. A slide deck is not reform. Reform begins the day entrenched interests lose their power to block it — and by that measure, DRDO under Kamat never got there.
THE HR MACHINE THAT EATS SCIENTISTS ALIVE WHY ARE THE WEAKEST CHAIRMEN SELECTED TO LEAD DG HR?
If any single function deserves a merciless institutional audit, it is Human Resources. In a scientific organisation, HR is not administrative plumbing — it is the entire climate in which scientists either flourish or wither. Transfers, postings, promotions, disciplinary proceedings, service disputes, court cases: these are not side issues. They are the terrain on which scientific productivity is won or lost.
A scientist fighting a transfer order for 5Years is not perfecting a seeker. A scientist contesting a disciplinary file is not refining a radar array. A scientist litigating a promotion is not solving a propulsion problem. He is fighting the system that was supposed to be fighting for him.
The bureaucracy has stopped serving science. Science has started serving the bureaucracy.
That inversion is not an inconvenience — it is dangerous, and it happened on someone’s watch.
THE AFHQ QUESTION NOBODY WANTS TO ASK OUT LOUD
The role and growing footprint of administrative cadres tied to Armed Forces Headquarters inside DRDO deserves to be examined in the open — not through whispers and allegations, but through records. The question is simple: has the administrative machinery propping up DRDO grown disproportionately powerful compared to the scientific establishment it exists to serve?
If the answer is no, the numbers should prove it in five minutes. If the answer is yes, the government owes the country an explanation. How many personnel, against how many sanctioned posts? What functions do they actually perform, and where do those functions duplicate DRDO’s own establishment machinery? What does it cost annually? Who controls transfers, postings, discipline, litigation? How many of those decisions end up contested in court, and how many of those cases are still pending years later?
And the question underneath all of it: does this structure make DRDO faster, or does it make DRDO slower? These are not personal attacks on individuals. They are governance questions a serious country asks about a strategic institution — and a serious Chairman answers them, rather than leaving them to outlive his tenure.
WHEN ADMINISTRATION BECOMES POWER
Every large institution needs administration. But administration exists to serve institutional purpose — the moment it becomes indispensable for every routine decision, it starts accumulating power of its own, and that power has a way of becoming self-perpetuating. Files start outranking outcomes. Procedure starts outranking purpose. Hierarchy starts outranking expertise.
And slowly, scientists stop asking what does the country need next? and start asking whom do I need to approach to get this done? That is how institutions decay — not in a single dramatic collapse, but quietly: one unnecessary file, one avoidable dispute, one delayed posting, one dragged-out court case, one stalled procurement, one talented scientist who simply stops trying. Then another. Then another. Until the organisation still has its thousands of employees but has lost its momentum entirely.
Here weakest chairmen selected The weakest DG HR and DOP, But they are functioning with absolute power as a GOD for the DRDO entire paternity.
THE COURT-CASE INDUSTRY
Litigation deserves its own uncompromising audit. When routine service matters routinely end up in court, the problem is rarely that employees are litigious by nature — it is usually that the administration itself is failing to resolve disputes before they escalate. Every significant case should be able to answer five questions: Why did the dispute start? Who made the original call? Could it have been settled internally? How much public money did it cost? How many scientific man-hours did it burn?
Because every court case involving a scientist carries a hidden bill — legal fees, administrative overhead, hearings, officers pulled off real work to draft responses — and somewhere in a laboratory, a scientist whose attention has been dragged away from the problem he was hired to solve. That cost never shows up on a balance sheet. National security pays it anyway.
THE SENSITIVE-DATA QUESTION THAT CANNOT BE WAVED AWAY
There are also unresolved questions surrounding the movement, custody and accessibility of sensitive DRDO information — questions that must be treated with total seriousness, not because every allegation is automatically true, but because national-security information cannot be governed by informal arrangements, assumptions, or institutional ambiguity.
If sensitive material moved outside authorised channels at any point, there must be a clean, documented answer: who authorised it, why, under what classification, who received it, where it was stored, who had access, what audit trail exists, and whether the transfer complied with security regulations. If the record is clean, it should be trivial to show that. A security investigation is not a weapon to be aimed at individuals — it is a mechanism that exists to protect the Republic, and it should be used as one. This was created by AFHq Cader, The Nation wants answer for it.
THE SCIENTISTS WERE NEVER THE PROBLEM
This distinction matters enormously, and it would be dishonest to blur it. DRDO’s scientists have delivered real strategic capability — in missiles, radar, aerospace, electronic warfare, naval systems, and more. The talent has never been in question. What is in question is whether the institution around that talent is capable of converting it into capability on time. That is an entirely different problem, and it is the one that actually needs fixing.
A country can have world-class scientists and a second-rate R&D management system at the same time. It can run brilliant laboratories out of a dysfunctional headquarters. It can post successful trials on top of chronically delayed programmes. It can spend enormous budgets and still deliver poor execution. Real DRDO reform, then, cannot be about stacking up more laboratories, more committees, more sanctioned posts. It has to be about building accountability for outcomes — the one thing that has been conspicuously missing.
THE CHAIRMAN’S TRUE TEST
A Chairman should be judged by what he leaves behind, not by what he presided over. If his successor inherits the same files, the same delays, the same bottlenecks, the same litigation, the same confusion, the same resistance to reform, and the same crushing dependency on layers of bureaucracy — then what, precisely, was transformed? That is the only test that matters. Leadership is not the ability to occupy the top floor of DRDO Bhawan. It is the ability to change what happens on the ground floor of a laboratory two thousand kilometres away.
THE MOST DANGEROUS WORD IN GOVERNMENT: “ONGOING”
Government has a peculiar vocabulary for standing still while appearing to move. Reform is always “under consideration.” Restructuring is perpetually “ongoing.” The file is eternally “under process.” The committee is forever “examining.” Years pass. People retire. Committees are reconstituted. Chairmen change. And somehow the reform itself never actually finishes — it simply remains, indefinitely, “ongoing.”
This is precisely why DRDO needs reform with teeth: not intentions, not promises, but deadlines, owners, metrics, and consequences. If a project slips, someone explains why. If a reform stalls, someone owns the stall. If a layer of administration is unnecessary, it gets cut — not studied again. If a scientist is worn down by an avoidable process, someone is held responsible. If sensitive information is mishandled, the investigation is uncompromising, full stop. That is how serious institutions actually behave. DRDO has not yet behaved that way.
WAS KAMAT THE WEAKEST CHAIRMAN?
History will settle that — but history needs evidence, not slogans. Calling any Chairman “the weakest” is a serious charge and should never be thrown around as one. It is equally dangerous, though, to shield senior leadership from scrutiny simply because the institution they run happens to be strategically vital. DRDO deserves scrutiny precisely because it is strategically vital — not despite it.
The Kamat years should be put through an independent, evidence-based performance audit: the organisation as it stood on the day he arrived, measured against the organisation as it stands today, on project delivery, cost escalation, HR reform, administrative efficiency, litigation, scientific manpower utilisation, technology transfer, industry participation, private-sector collaboration, procurement efficiency, security governance, and the actual implementation of the VijayRaghavan recommendations. Then let the numbers do the talking. If the record holds up, defend it. If it doesn’t, fix it. If it’s mixed, learn from it. But do not bury it in another file marked “ongoing.”
DRDO DOES NOT NEED A CUSTODIAN
It needs a reformer — someone who understands that scientific institutions cannot be run like conventional government offices, someone prepared to confront institutional inertia head-on and ask the uncomfortable questions instead of managing around them. Someone who will shield scientists from unnecessary administrative interference while demanding uncompromising scientific accountability in return. Someone who understands that autonomy without accountability curdles into complacency, and accountability without autonomy hardens into bureaucracy.
The next Chairman must be neither a bureaucrat who controls scientists nor a scientist who shields other scientists from being held to account. He must be an institution builder — because DRDO has had administrators. What it has not had, for far too long, is one.
The greatest danger to DRDO was never criticism. It is complacency. A country with ambitions of becoming a genuine global defence power cannot afford an R&D organisation that spends more energy managing itself than inventing the technologies of tomorrow. India needs hypersonics. It needs autonomous systems, advanced radar, electronic warfare, secure communications, propulsion, AI-enabled defence platforms, indigenous semiconductors, next-generation materials — technologies that do not exist yet, anywhere, and must be built here first.
None of that arrives at the speed the country needs while the institution charged with building it remains trapped in its own administrative inertia. So the real question was never simply “who was the weakest Chairman?” The real question, the one that outlasts any single tenure, is:
WHO WILL HAVE THE COURAGE TO FIX DRDO?
Because DRDO does not belong to a chairman. It does not belong to an administrative cadre, or a laboratory director, or any one scientist. DRDO belongs to India. And India’s strategic future is too important to be held hostage by institutional inertia — by anyone, for any length of time.
Hope MOD, PMO will take fast necessary action for the sake of National interest.
There is a particular kind of silence that settles over an institution when it stops being managed and starts merely being administered. That silence has now hung over DRDO for months. An organisation tasked with the country’s missile systems, its aeronautical programmes, its strategic technology base, has been running without a dedicated chief since the start of June — and the closest thing to an explanation the public has received is a bureaucratic holding pattern.
It is observing by all national mind peoples that how serios GOI looking DRDO fate.
This is not a minor administrative gap. It is a signal.
In Jan 2024, the MOD (Ministry of Defence), acting under the direction of the PMO, constituted the Raghavan Committee to overhaul DRDO. The mandate was serious: an organisation with a well-documented record of missed timelines needed structural reform, not another internal review.
What followed instead was a familiar bureaucratic reflex. Subcommittees were formed to study the committee’s findings. Those subcommittees spawned further subcommittees. Officer Scientist and Distinguished Scientist-level personnel — among the most senior technical talent in the country — were pulled into cycles of review, re-review, and internal consultation that consumed months and, by extension, crores of public money.
Where did it go? That is not a rhetorical question. It is one the Ministry of Defence and the PMO owe the country a direct answer to. If the recommendations were implemented, where is the documentation of that implementation? If they were shelved, on whose authority, and why was the public never told?
If public want to see the effort of senior DRDO scientists with respect of Raghavan Committee, it can be only possible to see the dustbin of DRDO, MOD and PMO.
Silence is not an acceptable substitute for accountability on a reform effort of this scale.
The facts here are not in dispute. Dr. Samir V. Kamat’s tenure as DRDO Chairman ended with his retirement on 31 May 2026 with two year unfruitful extension. In his place, the Defence Secretary was handed additional charge — a stopgap measure explicitly described as temporary, pending a “regular” appointment.
The Ministry interviewed five shortlisted candidates for the post on 3 July 2026. That was over six weeks ago. As of this writing, DRDO remains without a permanent chairman.
An organisation responsible for the country’s strategic technology base has now gone more than two and a half months without a dedicated head, through a selection process the government itself initiated and has still not concluded. If this is efficiency, the Ministry should explain what inefficiency would look like. If there is a legitimate reason for the delay, the public — and the scientists working under this uncertainty — deserve to hear it stated plainly, not left to infer it from silence.
Beyond the vacancy itself, a pattern has been alleged by scientists and observers within and around the organization — one that the Ministry has never publicly addressed:
Why have promotions and appointments within DRDO’s leadership repeatedly drawn allegations of being steered toward a particular network, rather than decided strictly on domain expertise and merit?
Why has a senior appointment reportedly moved a person with a missile-technology background into a post overseeing aeronautical systems — a shift that, on its face, invites the question of whether technical fit was the deciding factor?
Currently the blessed lobby manipulating the promotions and appointments without justifying like DG MSS no field of missile technology and who is man of missile become DG Aero what a joke but it is only possible in DRDO because 56% MSC chemistry is responsible to manipulating this, and his other qualification and experiences at the time of joining can verified from office of The AFHq, CO, A1B.
What is the status of the police complaint reportedly pending with Uttarakhand Police over the printing of a national flag upside down on an official publication? A pending complaint is a matter of public record, not a private matter — the public is entitled to know its status.
How many honest scientists have raised concerns internally, only to find their careers stalled rather than their concerns investigated? And how many court cases now exist as a result? Only way to see the great achievements, please go through the agencies reports silently.
None of this is cynicism for its own sake. It is a demand for the basic mechanics of accountable governance: that a reform committee’s findings be published and acted on, not buried; that a leadership vacancy at a strategic institution be filled with urgency, not left to drift; and that allegations of favoritism and credential fraud, once raised, be either formally investigated and closed, or shown to be baseless — not simply left to hang over the institution indefinitely.
DRDO does not need another committee. It needs an answer to the ones it has already commissioned. JAI HIND.
How a Defence Lab Contract Vanished: A Case Study in Procurement Capture
A defence contract. A husband’s company. Nine months of silence. A bank guarantee returned without penalty. And the officer who raised the alarm — allegedly punished on his own promotion board by the same person he complained about.
That’s the shape of the case being made against Ms. Suma Varughese, former DG (MED & CoS) and, as of 15 June 2026, a sitting DRDO chair-holder — now proposed for a panel role in the Centre of Excellence appointment process. her inclusion should be paused, not because of one bad contract, but because of an alleged pattern: official position, family company, and institutional pressure, repeating across postings.
Name
Alleged Role
Alleged Leverage Point
Suma Varughese
DG, MED & CoS (former); current DRDO chair
Alleged to have directed procurement toward her husband’s firm and used board positions against a complaining officer
Thomas Varughese
Her husband; director, ComAVIA / Comavia System Technologies Pvt Ltd + two other firms
Alleged beneficiary of contracts said to trace back to her office
Ex-Purchase Officer
Transferred, CABS → CAIR
Alleged to have swapped in a settlement clause ill-suited to the case
Current CAGO
Transferred, CABS → CAIR
Alleged to have fast-tracked the file under pressure
Mr. Christopher
Ex-DRDO Chairman, now at IIT Chennai
Alleged to have shielded the pattern when it was first reported, years earlier at CABS
Mr. Mangal
DG, TM
Alleged to have endorsed the current appointment “under pressure”
The paper trail starts with Contract Agreement/Supply Order No. CAIR/21AT0044/G1S/LP/197, dated 5 February 2021, awarded to Comavia System Technologies Pvt Ltd — the firm run by Ms. Varughese’s husband.
What allegedly happened next reads like a playbook:
A CAIR contractor’s bill — Exhibit A — corroborates part of this trail: a claim of ₹6,34,868 (Claim No. CL-9748169273988883) against this exact contract number, billed 29 November 2023 under the head “Vivad Se Vishwas-I.” That’s real paperwork, not just narrative. What it doesn’t prove on its own is the 9-month delay or the absence of penalty — those live in the contract’s liquidated-damages clause and the closure file, which haven’t been produced yet.
One flag worth resolving: the swapped clause “Vivad se Samvad.” The bill says “Vivad Se Vishwas.” Same family of settlement scheme, not necessarily the same clause — this needs to be pinned down before it goes anywhere official, or it hands a critic an easy way to poke a hole in an otherwise strong document.
The allegation doesn’t stop at procurement. In a separate DRDO HQ review, Ms. Varughese — as chairperson — allegedly leaned on the Project Director to finish an unrelated project faster, while expanding its scope. Then, sitting on his promotion board, she is alleged to have used that position to fail him.
Project Director complained. With evidence. To the highest authorities.
The response: sympathy. No action.Its because DRDO having helpless chairmen.
That’s the line keeps returning to — not that nobody knew, but that everybody who could act, didn’t.
Forget the single contract for a second. The real charge isn’t about one file — it’s about where the habit was learned.
Years before CAIR, before the ₹6.34 lakh guarantee, before the promotion-board retaliation — Suma Varughese was posted at CABS, and Mr. Christopher was running it as Director. That’s the alleged origin point. Not a coincidence of timing — a partnership of convenience, according to the complaint: her authority to place orders, his authority to make sure nobody looked too hard.
And the orders didn’t stop at one. multiple contracts, across multiple years, all flowing to the same address — Thomas Varughese’s company. Every one of them, allegedly reported. Every one of them, allegedly buried — not lost, not overlooked, managed. That word matters. It’s not “missed.” It’s not “an oversight.” The claim is that someone with the authority to stop it chose, repeatedly, not to.
Here’s the part that should stop anyone reading this cold: this didn’t end when Mr. Christopher moved on, and it didn’t end when Suma Varughese left CABS. The same channel kept running — through DARE, through CAIR — and that the combined value of contracts steered this way, over the years, runs into crores of rupees. Not lakhs. Not one bad quarter. Crores — of taxpayer money, moving in one direction, for one family, over one long career.
That’s not a procurement irregularity. That’s a standing arrangement. A ₹6.34 lakh bank guarantee released without penalty isn’t the crime — it’s the residue. It’s what’s left visible above the waterline of something much bigger, much older, and allegedly still running.
One thing has to be said plainly: every figure in this section — “several orders,” “crores of rupees,” “till date” — is an allegation, not yet a filed number. It’s the single most serious claim in this whole account, and it deserves the single highest bar of proof: pull the CABS-era contract register, cross-reference every award to Thomas Varughese’s firms across CABS, DARE, CAIR and other various DRDO Labs, total it. If the number is real, it will show up in black and white. If it’s real, no one should need to take the word for it — the ledger will say it.
This isn’t presented as an isolated file. It’s alleged this pattern started at CABS, under Mr. Christopher’s watch, and never actually stopped — it just changed addresses, moving through DARE and CAIR and other DRDO Labs while the same two names stayed at the center of it. Mr. Mangal’s endorsement of the current appointment is alleged to have come under similar pressure — one more instance, of the same machine finding one more hand to turn the crank.
It’s requested by the Core taxpayers of india to IISc, please check the IB reports before consideration of MS. Suma Varughese for the Center of Excellence Appointment.
A strong story isn’t the same as a provable one. To make this stick:
An official allegedly steered work to her husband’s company, let it fail without cost, then sat in judgment over the man who objected. Strip the drama and it’s still a serious claim — which is exactly why it needs evidence, not adjectives, to carry it forward.
This is an initiative to protect the nation from anti-national networks that treat public defence funds as private income. Every rupee lost to a rigged contract or an unpunished withdrawal is a rupee taken from the taxpayer who funded it in good faith. Institutions built to defend the country cannot be allowed to double as private revenue streams for the well-connected. Accountability isn’t optional when national security budgets are on the line — it’s the minimum the country is owed.
Allegations of Conflict of Interest and Abuse of Official Position in Indigenous Defence Procurement.
For nearly 30 Years, concerns have repeatedly been raised regarding alleged conflicts of interest involving certain scientists and officials associated with (DRDO) defence research and development organizations. These concerns warrant an independent, transparent, and time-bound investigation in the larger interest of national security, public accountability, and the integrity of defence procurement.
One such matter relates to Mr. Arvind Kumar Shukla, who served as a scientist at the Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA), Bengaluru. It has been alleged that a private company, M/s Pendios Pvt. Ltd., was established in the name of his wife Miss. Sandhya Shukla and was involved in the manufacture of indigenous various aerospace products, including:
Cockpit Flood Light
Inverter cum dimmer
Lighting Control Panel
Navigation Light
Lighting Panel
Formation Light
Other aircraft and testing equipment
The central concern is the apparent conflict of interest. It is alleged that, while holding an official position in ADA, Mr. Shukla was associated with planning, technical evaluation, and testing activities relating to products allegedly manufactured by the same private company. Official documents available on DRDO-related platforms are claimed to indicate his involvement in these activities. If verified, such a situation would raise serious questions regarding impartiality, transparency, and compliance with government conduct rules.
It is further alleged that the products subsequently obtained airworthiness certification from CEMILAC by claiming them to be based on indigenous technology. However, it is alleged that the items were, in fact, imported and their actual origin was concealed before being supplied through HAL.
Questions have also been raised as to whether all testing procedures and qualification requirements prescribed by DGAQA were carried out in strict compliance with the applicable standards. Complaints received from concerned parties further allege that certain test parameters were manipulated or altered during the qualification process. It has also been alleged that such irregularities continued even after the retirement of the concerned official.
These allegations are serious and, if substantiated through an independent investigation, could indicate violations of conflict-of-interest principles, misuse of official position, and possible irregularities in defence procurement and certification processes.
Given the strategic importance of defence systems and the need to maintain public confidence in indigenous defence manufacturing, it is imperative that the competent authorities conduct a comprehensive inquiry into all relevant records, approvals, testing procedures, certification processes, and procurement decisions. Any wrongdoing, if established, should be dealt with strictly in accordance with the law, while ensuring that all individuals concerned are afforded due process.
Several complaints relating to this matter are already stated to be under consideration by the competent authorities. Their impartial examination is essential to uphold transparency, accountability, and the credibility of India’s defence research and procurement ecosystem.
The appointment of the Director General (DG) of BrahMos became the subject of a prolonged legal dispute after concerns were raised regarding the selection process.
Sivan Subramanyam, the senior-most Distinguished Scientist (DS) in DRDO, challenged the appointment before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), contending that the prescribed selection procedure had not been followed. After examining the matter, the CAT directed the DRDO Secretary to revisit the appointment process and conduct a fresh selection in accordance with the applicable rules and procedures.
Instead of implementing the Tribunal’s directions, the DRDO Secretary challenged the CAT order before the Hon’ble High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad. After extensive hearings, the final arguments were concluded on 8 July, and the matter now awaits judgment.
Throughout this legal battle, one individual stood firmly for the cause of justice—Advocate Shri Srinivas Chamarthy. Despite the complexity and significance of the case, he rendered his legal services without accepting a single penny in professional fees. His commitment to the rule of law, fairness, and institutional integrity reflects exceptional dedication and selfless service.
This case is not merely about one appointment; it concerns adherence to established procedures, transparency in public institutions, and the principle that every public authority must remain accountable to the rule of law.
Dr Kamat is a Helpless Head of DRDO because during his one-year extension he is not able to preforms his responsibilities given by GOI.
Like first and most important task was to implementing Dr Raghwan Committee recommendations why because he has not had the charisma to convenience his colleges the clear massage of PMO vision of future DRDO.
As per one DG comments that DR Raghavan Committee recommendations and PMO given us directions and in reply we told the whatever suits us will implement and whatever not suit we denied. Rest that DRDO having mastery in manipulations.
And still DRDO running in the direction of Dr Sarswat and reference is an example that like Dr Sarwat made Dr Raja Babu direct Scientist G from Group Captain in SPIC by tailor made vacancy and second case Commander Patel (Dr Twssy’s husband) recruited Scientist G by tailor made advertisement and instructed all directors that if any deserved scientist apply his application should not recommended. So same legacy is maintaining by Dr Kamat as everyone knows in DRDO how Dr Sudhir Mishra given Chair, and after that Sh J R Joshi rewarded as DG Barhmos. Joshi is the junior most among the all candidates. Regarding this I have already altered DR Kamat prior to interview as our Honourable Prime Minster Modi ji ‘s called every citizen is Chowkidar. Mai Bhi Huin Chaukidar as Dr Sudhir Mishra and his nexus hijacked the DRDO Chief see the below my what sup massage to Dr Kamat on 21st October 2024. I got inputs that Dr Sudhir Mishra was called Philippines and boasted that his man Dr J R Joshi will become DG Barhmos and told that now he will command the show of Brahmos empire. J R Joshi was the member of inquiry committee which gave clean chit to Dr Sudhir Mishra in spite of all evidences.
NEW DELHI: A powerful group in the DRDO believes that these changes could weaken their hold over the institution.
Hectic parleys and lobbying have begun for the post of the chairman of the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO), whose existing chairman, Samir V. Kamat will retire on 31 May, unless he is given an extension. The Appointments Committee of the Cabinet (ACC) decides on the appointment of the chief of the DRDO.
With the country going through Lok Sabha elections, the last phase of which is scheduled for 1 June and the results for 4 June, it is to be seen whether a new appointment is made on or before 31 May or Kamat is asked to continue to lead the organisation temporarily till the ACC decides on a new name or gives him a full extension as has happened earlier in the case of Directorate of Enforcement and Research and Analysis Wing among others. Those in line to succeed him include his colleagues, B.K. Das who is presently the Director General (Electronics & Communication Systems); Dr Suma Varughese, leading the Micro Electronic Devices, Computational Systems and Cyber Systems division; and Dr Ummalaneni Raja Babu who is the head of the Missiles and Strategic Systems division. Of the three, Das holds the most senior position. The three are scheduled to retire in August, January and April 2026, respectively. Sources say that the possibility of Kamat getting an extension post 31 May is not ruled out.
Various individuals, including former chiefs of DRDO, retired secretaries, individuals who deal in the sale and purchase of arms and advanced weaponry, who claim to have got the eyes and ears of the offices who will decide on who the new DRDO chief will be post 31 May, are pushing for their respective candidates.
However, what is going to make the job of the incoming new chairman more challenging than his predecessors to an organisation that had a budget of Rs 23,000 crore last year—which will rise to Rs 35,000 crore in the coming few years—is that the new chairman is now likely to work under a new system that will be based on what the K. Vijay Raghavan Committee had suggested in its report. The committee submitted its report in January this year, after it was constituted by Prime Minister Narendra Modi in August last year to suggest a way to reform the organisation and handle the decades-long complaints of DRDO was simply not giving outputs that would justify the massive funding that it was getting each year.
CHANGES NEEDED IN DRDO WORKING STYLE Among the significant changes this nine-member committee, headed by the former principal scientific advisor, suggested was to bring the working of the organisation under the Prime Minister’s Office to ensure accountability and swift action. Several such committees in the past—A.P.J. Abdul Kalam Committee (1992), P. Rama Rao Committee (2008) and the V. Ramagopal Rao Committee (2020)—have shared recommendations with the single objective of making DRDO accountable when it comes to cost overruns and meeting the deadline that it promises. But all such previous recommendations have been pushed under the carpet because of a strong pushback from within the DRDO, aided by outside entities who gain due to these project delays and cost overruns.
The nine-member committee, apart from Raghavan, that made the report included former Deputy Chief of Army Staff, Lt Gen Subrata Saha (retired); former Vice Chief of Navy Staff, Vice Admiral S.N. Ghormade; former Chief of Integrated Staff, Air Marshal B.R. Krishna; Director General of the Manohar Parrikar Institute of Defence Studies and Analyses, Sujan R. Chinoy; Professor Manindra Agarwal of IIT Kanpur; President, Society of Indian Defence Manufacturers, S.P. Shukla; J.D. Patil of Larsen & Toubro Defence; S. Unnikrishnan Nair, Distinguished Scientist; ISRO and Rasika Chaube, Financial Advisor in the Ministry of Defence (MoD).
Sources aware of the matter claimed that the current leadership of DRDO had conveyed its protst against the recommendations, and that in March a delegation had met the concerned offices in Delhi to register their protest. Among the recommendations that are being resisted is the abolition of the posts of director general and director, in place of which there will be “members” and “lab-in charges”. A recommendation has been made to establish a specialised department dedicated to overseeing government funds, ensuring that they are appropriately utilised for defence projects. This department would also address cost-related issues faced by the organisation, including but not limited to the prevention of embezzlement.
The creation of a separate body—Defence Technology Council (DTC)—which will be headed by the Prime Minister and will have the Defence Minister and the National Security Advisor as members, apart from two members each from academia and industry to bring diverse perspectives, has also met with stiff resistance from some in the organisation who are unwilling to see changes in the functioning of the DRDO despite the need for them in view of challenging new tasks set by the Prime Minister.
Some of DRDO top offices are also against setting up of a separate department under the MoD—the Department of Defence Science, Technology and Innovation (DDSTI) with the aim to promote R&D in academics and encourage start-ups. More importantly, the committee has called for the bifurcation of the post of Secretary, R&D, in the MoD, which is presently held by the DRDO chairman. The proposed changes are viewed by a faction within the DRDO as potentially undermining the longstanding autonomy and operational freedom enjoyed by its senior officials. This powerful group in the DRDO believes that such changes could weaken their hold over the institution.
A December 2023 Parliamentary Standing Committee (PSC) report titled, “A Review of the Working of the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO)”, which was chaired by Jual Oram, had expressed concerns about 23 out of DRDO’s 55 mission mode projects facing significant delays. A December 2022 CAG report had stated that 67% (119 out of 178) of the DRDO projects that were examined, failed to adhere to proposed timelines.
The oversight on DRDO’s working by the Prime Minister’s Office is being strongly resisted by a group as the organisation has a massive budget which is going to increase in the coming days.Given its long-standing problems and the fact that they have continued to persist despite regular encouragement, it is expected that the PMO is unlikely to back down in front of these demands
from a few groups that want the system to run as it has been running. The proposed new system will also mean that the functioning of DRDO officials, when it comes to taking decisions worth crores of rupees, will now be watched closely.
NEW DELHI: Samir V. Kamat is being faulted by some within the DRDO for ‘continuing to sit on the findings of BrahMos’ own internal committee’.
In the first week of September 2022, a three-member Fact Finding and Investigation Committee (FFIC) that was constituted in January 2022, submitted its report to the present Defence and Research Development Organization (DRDO) chief Samir V. Kamat. The said committee was formed on the directions of scientist Atul Dinkar Rane, who was appointed as the chief executive officer and managing director of BrahMos airspace on 20 December 2021 after his predecessor Dr Sudhir Kumar Mishra had retired on 30 November 2021.
While taking over the charge from Mishra, Rane was also given the details of the documents, both sensitive and general in nature, as a part of “handing over”. However, on 28 December, Mishra returned a set of “secret” documents back to BrahMos headquarters, which were not in the list of documents that Mishra had shown to be in his possession during the handing over process earlier. This action prompted Rane to constitute the three-member committee to find out if any other sensitive documents were unaccounted for and if any other things which should not have been taken out from the premises of BrahMos were taken out.
During their probe, the committee members found that from 27 November till 30 November, Mishra had engaged private packers and movers who packed 40 cartons that contained stuff lying in his office. The statement of the packers and movers revealed that 20 paintings, 8 cartons of books, medals in 10 cartons, 10 cartons of liquor amounting to 100 bottles and 8 cartons of blankets, bedsheets and towels were allegedly taken from the BrahMos Headquarters to the residence of Mishra at Vasant Kunj. The Sunday Guardian has accessed the statement of the transporter. No inventory register of these things was maintained, but the committee found videos and stills of the cartons from the cameras that were installed at the entry and exit of X-ray machines.
When the committee sought to check the CCTV footage of these three days, it found that footage of the corresponding days were missing. As a result of these lapses, Lieutenant Colonel R.S. Suri (Retd), the Chief General Manager (CGM) responsible for data security, document handling, and outgoing materials at BrahMos Aerospace, was transferred to Hyderabad, but he chose to resign.
The committee also found that Mishra was still in the possession of over Rs 7 lakh (depreciated value) worth laptops, desktops and mobile phones and inventories that belonged to BrahMOs. When he was asked about it, he sent a cheque of Rs 1.71 lakh on 23 March to BrahMOs in lieu of the stuff that was lying in his possession. The then Personal Assistant of Mishra told the committee members that he took a lot of documents outside the headquarters after photo copying them. Such a claim remains unverified. However, the committee members decided to end their probe abruptly after they found INSAS guns, rocket launchers, ammunition and live bombs inside the BrahMos campus. They decided that the matter was now a case for the probe of specialized agencies like the National Investigation Agency.
The said report was then submitted to DRDO chief Kamat through BrahMos chief in September 2022. Kamat ordered that the said arms and ammunition should be sent to Armaments Research & Development Establishment (ARDE) for further investigation. Till now no action has been reported as being taken on these series of lapses that occurred under the watch of Kamat and Mishra. Kamat, on his part, is being faulted by some within the DRDO for “continuing to sit on these findings of BrahMos’ own internal committee”. The entire incident would have continued to be unknown if Mishra had not recently applied for a non executive advisory consultancy position (Raja Ramanna Chair) in DRDO.
Kamat after receiving the application from Mishra wrote to BrahMos seeking their suggestions on his application, it was then that the officials in the defence establishment and Kamat were made to recall the findings of the three-member committee, which the DRDO chief has allegedly refused to act on for almost 20 months now. Sources said B.P. Sharma, who is the Chairman of Recruitment & Assessment Centre (RAC) in DRDO, has refused to move ahead with the application of Mishra in wake of the findings of the said committee.
Mishra on his part has called the revival of this entire matter as a “malicious campaign and propaganda” against him by some “vested interests” which stems from his application for the consultancy position (Chair) in DRDO. Mishra has said that he retired more than two years ago from DRDO and if there was any security breach then why it was not flagged and reported earlier. According to him, as per protocol, he had handed over all the documents including files marked “classified” and “confidential” to his successor in the presence of the company secretary. He said that on the day of his retirement he did carry back his “personal belongings”—the souvenirs given to him during his seven-year tenure as DG, DRDO; from 2014 to 2021, the degrees and honours he had obtained and other personal belongings in five to six boxes.
While responding to these developments, DRDO had said that it had “received a complaint against Dr Sudhir Kumar Mishra, Ex CEO & MD of BrahMos Aerospace. Based upon the complaint, a Fact Finding Inquiry Committee was formed by Secretary DDR&D and Chairman DRDO. However the committee didn’t find any evidence to back the allegation levied.”
However, sources aware of the matter said that the inquiry committee was not formed on the basis of a complaint, but an internal concern raised by the top officers of BrahMOs. Secondly, the fact finding committee had reportedly found multiple lapses, including the presence of unexplained arms and ammunition inside the campus. A section of DRDO officials said it was a failure of Kamat to “sit on this entire findings” that included unexplained presence of ammunition, failure of working CCTVs which indicates major lapses in the organization.
Messages sent to Mr Kamat seeking his response on the matter including the inaction on the findings of the committee elicited no response till the time the report went to press.
NEW DELHI: Aeronautical Development Establishment, a Bengaluru-based DRDO lab that developed the Lakshya aircraft, has been visited by the CBI.
Possible misuse of hundreds of crores of rupees related to a premier pilotless aircraft system, which was developed by the Defence Research and Development Organization (DRDO), has come to the notice of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) last month, after which the CBI has started its preliminary enquiry in the matter.
Aeronautical Development Establishment (ADE), a Bengaluru-based lab of the DRDO, that developed the pilotless target aircraft, “Lakshya” has been visited at least twice by the CBI officials in the past one month.
The alleged scam, in which critical components needed for this project like small aircraft and trucks, were procured but only on paper while some went “missing”. Despite the ADE top officials who are handling the project, being made aware of these discrepancies at least since 2015, did not report these to the CBI but rather allegedly victimized the official who brought it to their notice, while refusing to be a part of the coverup.
As per rules, whenever an item or material is purchased for the development of any program, Lakshya in this case, and when it is brought physically to the ADE campus, an entry is done in the ledger detailing the said product. The said ledger is handled by a permanent employee of the DRDO and once he moves out either due to retirement or new posting, the said ledger is then handed over to another employee, who first checks all the inventories are there as mentioned in the books before taking over the possession of the ledger.
There are two ledgers that are used to ensure products don’t go “missing”. The first one is the Personal Ledger (PL) in which an item purchased under the “general head” is entered.
Then there is the Project Personal Ledger or PPL in which items purchased under “project head” are entered.
This is done to ensure that whatever was paid for by the Government of India is actually bought and delivered and it’s the accountability and responsibility of the officer holding the ledgers to make sure that details in the ledgers match the material in the campus and the lab.
As per the details accessed by the CBI, a “PL number 613”, which contains products and materials purchased for Lakshya, was till 31 January 2011 being handled by B.R. Suresh, a Scientist-D with ADE.
When he retired on that date it was revealed that materials including pilotless target aircrafts, trucks, electronic sub system were missing and hence the matter was recorded internally and the post-retirement benefits of Suresh were withheld, but were subsequently released after four years, said sources.
In January 2015, the project director of Lakshya, V. Subramaniam asked one of his juniors to take over the PL that was earlier the responsibility of B.R. Suresh. Sources said that till then, the responsibility of the PL was not entrusted to anyone.
As was required under the rules, the said officer, before taking over the responsibility of PL-613, went to the lab to verify whether all the listed and purchased material were present or not.
crores, that were listed in the PL, were missing.
The missing inventory included at least 5 aircraft, 10 trucks, 50 tow bodies and 10 gyroscopes.
As per the information received by the CBI, Subramaniam asked the said officer to take the responsibility of the PL register, without mentioning the discrepancies, which Subramaniam claimed he would “manage’ by manipulating the content. In lieu, the said officer was promised swift promotion. The said officer, however, refused to accept the responsibility of the ledger.
Upon witnessing the refusal to take the handover of the PL, Subramaniam is alleged to have taken away access of the said scientist to his workplace and started harassing him.
The said officer, who had reached out to the other top officials in the lab to inform them of these discrepancies, received no help and for 28 months, no salary was given to him.
Those close to Subramanian say that such charges against him are baseless and motivated. In a response to The Sunday Guardian’s queries on the matter, DRDO, while confirming that a CBI probe at ADE, Bengaluru with regards to the Lakshya project was going on, stated that, “As per statements of ex Lakshya Project Personnel and available records, no discrepancies related to material needed for this project were communicated to the top officials anytime during 2011 or in 2014.”
Messages sent to Subramaniam did not elicit any response till the time the report went to press.
In 2019, Subramanian, now in the position of “Scientist-G” who was not originally on the interview panel that was constituted to interview and promote his erstwhile junior, made himself a member of the panel and ensured that the junior was denied the promotion. This happened despite the said scientist requesting the Human Resources head to not be interviewed by a panel that had his former boss as the member.
In November 2021, a memorandum of major penalty was filed against the scientist for “unauthorised leave” during the period when his access to his lab was withdrawn by Subramaniam which did not allow him to mark the attendance.
It is pertinent to mention that ADE and DRDO both had come under severe criticism from relevant government bodies for their failure to execute Lakshya on time despite the government releasing funds and other resources without any delay.
Subramaniam, who retired in May 2023, is still coming to the ADE campus regularly despite having been accorded no responsibility that would necessitate his visit to the campus, especially when an inquiry has been going on with regards to the discrepancies in Lakshya ledger that was his responsibility.
Last month, amidst the ongoing CBI investigation, crucial files related to the said project were allegedly dumped in the dump yard of the campus to be destroyed.
This happened after the CBI officials visited the campus on 28 March. The agency officials visited the campus again on 19 April.
Lakshya had a total of four projects—Lakshya, Lakshya LSP (Limited Series Production), Lakshya 1-D (partially digital version) and Lakshya 2, which was the fully digital version. The project has been a huge technical success.
Appeal to clean DRDO of corrupt and anti-national officials
