Tag Archives: Every

Drdo

Supreme Court to examine DRDOs exclusion under section 24

Leave a comment

17 Aug, 2014- RTI Foundation of India

On a petition filed by Dr. Neelam Bhalla, a scientist at DRDO, a Bench of Justices Dipak Misra and V. Gopala Gowda of the Supreme Court issued a notice to the Centre and the DRDO. The petitioner was transferred to a different unit and she filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act seeking the reasons for her transfer.

Her application was turned down by the DRDO and her second appeal was rejected by the Central Information Commission. On failure to get any relief from the Delhi High Court, she moved the apex court contending that only that information which directly affected and correlated to “intelligence and security” could be exempted and the information which were general in nature should not be denied.

She has demanded that records relating to their services should be provided. Bhalla has challenged the interpretation of section 24 of the Right to Information Act in the context of the exclusion of exempted organisations listed in schedule II such as the DRDO.

The petition says that wilful disclosure of incorrect or false or misleading information relating to routine matters such as transfer not only to the petitioner but also to higher authorities, namely the Minister of Defence and the National Commission for Women, to justify their actions, was an offence under the newly enacted Whistle Blowers Protection Act.

Bhalla has alleged that she was a victim of gender discrimination and humiliation at the hands of senior scientists. When she filed a complaint before the NCW against the alleged nepotism and lapses in the policy of recruitment, the task for the recruitment of scientists ‘B’ was selectively taken away from her.

She has sought directions to disclose the reasons for her transfer through the Apex Court. Now the matter would be heard by the SC to decide whether the defence organisations such as the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) can withhold information regarding transfer of an employee, claiming exemption under section 24 of the Right to Information Act. Section 24 of the RTI Act, 2005 is reproduced below:

– 24. Act not to apply in certain organizations.-

(1) Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the intelligence and security organisations specified in the Second Schedule, being organisations established by the Central Government or any information furnished by such organisations to that Government:

Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this sub-section: Provided further that in the case of information sought for is in respect of allegations of violation of human rights, the information shall only be provided after the approval of the Central Information Commission, and notwithstanding anything contained in section 7, such information shall be provided within forty-five days from the date of the receipt of request.

(2) The Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, amend the Schedule by including therein any other intelligence or security organisation established by that Government or omitting therefrom any organisation already specified therein and on the publication of such notification, such organisation shall be deemed to be included in or, as the case may be, omitted from the Schedule.

(3) Every notification issued under sub-section (2) shall be laid before each House of Parliament.

(4) Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to such intelligence and security organisation being organisations established by the State Government, as that Government may, from time to time, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify: Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this sub-section: (2) The Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, amend the Schedule by including therein any other intelligence or security organisation established by that Government or omitting therefrom any organisation already specified therein and on the publication of such notification, such organisation shall be deemed to be included in or, as the case may be, omitted from the Schedule.

(3) Every notification issued under sub-section (2) shall be laid before each House of Parliament.

(4) Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to such intelligence and security organisation being organisations established by the State Government, as that Government may, from time to time, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify: Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this sub-section: Provided further that in the case of information sought for is in respect of allegations of violation of human rights, the information shall only be provided after the approval of the State Information Commission and, notwithstanding anything contained in section 7, such information shall be provided within forty-five days from the date of the receipt of request.

(5) Every notification issued under sub-section (4) shall be laid before the State Legislature.

Drdo

Every fortnight launching a missile – hidden agenda of DRDO

Leave a comment

Sh. Narendra Modi ji, Honorable Prime Minister when asked about Indo-Pak relations he said “Talks get lost in the noise of bomb blasts.” It was a simple and effective way to convey the message to our neighbor.

Since 1999, when DRDO credentials were on stake due to the exposure of its strength in KARGIL WAR, the then Genral Malik openly criticized the role of DRDO.

DRDO planned to create a thunderous noise to divert the attention of the government and common people of India by simply launching missiles. After smelling the effect, it started missile launching roughly at the interval of fortnights with different variant of missiles like Prithvi, I, II, III, Akash, Agni I, II, III, IV, V, IV Nag, Trishul and ………….

All the developed nations have demonstrated the ability to analyze the failures and incorporated the corrective measures and are able to sell and generate revenue out of their research.

DRDO, however justifies the failures and with thunderous noise tries to divert the attention of government and common people of India who in turn pay crores and crores rupees for the development of missiles.

No practical data showed on photographs of missile launching or hitting the target has been shown to the nation. DRDO always released the launching flight scene but never demonstrated the kill probability. Why the matter of fact as per sources that last month Sh. Avinash Chandra witnessed the target hitting of a 100 KW laser Aditya which was suppose to hit moving targets. It was not able to hit static target, in fact it missed it by meters. The case of 20 KW Coil laser is also an example that without delivering the required output project main 16.58 Cr. equipment was mysteriously burned in fire accident but surprisingly DRDO announced that the project was successful and a successful completion letter from under secretary, MOD, Mr. Deb was put in project file to fool the government and common men of India who are paying the money for their misadventure. And the best part of this is that he project leader Dr. R K Tyagi got scientist of the year award from DRDO.

In 1991 Gulf war, Americans demonstrated the capability of Patriot missile’s hitting and intercepting the Scud missile and the scene was witnessed across the globe.

Can SA to RM demonstrate the same capability to our new Prime Minister Sh. Modi Ji? It will help him plan the defence preparedness to secure the boundary.

DRDO by far has a hidden agenda of launching a missile in every fortnight just to divert the attention of the government and common people of India from the rampant corruption of DRDO misappropriation of funds, misinterpretation of rules, the common practices noticed by the CGDA in special audit of DRDO.

Since the KARGIL WAR, incompetency has flourished in DRDO and has created a void as a result. Those who were supposed to retire from active service have managed during UPA government two to even three extensions with promotions ignoring Honorable Supreme Court and violating DoPT guidelines.

They are involved with 1000 crores of programs (of course without any end result) the commission/omission does not permit them to lose the extra income and perks and they are blessed by the competent authorities.

India has voted for a strong government in the centre and expecting new government will sense the weaker points and fix the accountability of DRDO. The government will look what was the compulsion of previous governments or in which circumstance they gave such unprecedented extension to such selected group of people like

Dr A S Pillai, CC&D, CEO, Brahmos touching 67 years CCR&D since 13th Sep. 1999.

Dr. SK Vasudeva, Ex Director, SPIC, DRDO after three successive extensions now working in contract

Sh Avinash Chander, SA to RM, DG, DRDO, Secretary, DRD presently in second extension and after November 2014 on contractual appointment.

5 Top DRDO senior officials are in second extension

Few directors of Labs are on second extension

And 60 to 62 years extension countless in DRDO

Extension business has created a vacuum in DRDO Hqrs. and if it continues probably there won’t be manpower available from active service to head the Lab and shoulder the responsibility of DRDO’s plan of action. “Here at present nobody is responsible for any outcome”

Drdo

6,000 cr wasted, 10-yr delay & they want 150,000 cr more

Leave a comment

Express Investigation: Delayed Research; Delayed Organisation – Part – One

 6,000 cr wasted, 10-yr delay & they want 150,000 cr more

Amitav Ranjan

Posted: Sun Nov 12 2006, 00:00 hrs

New Delhi, November 11:

Make India prosperous by establishing a world-class science and technology base…provide our Defence Services the decisive edge by equipping them with internationally competitive systems and solutions… design, develop and lead to production state-of-the-art weapons systems…

That’s the “vision” and the “mission” the Defence Research & Development Organisation (DRDO) has proudly spelt out for itself.

An investigation by The Sunday Express into official records that include detailed testimonies by the Ministry of Defence to a Parliamentary Standing Committee — its report is yet to be tabled in Parliament — shows that if there’s one thing this behemoth of 50 laboratories with a staff of about 33,000 has developed to almost perfection, it’s this: wrapping itself around the flag to hide a record of delay and non-delivery in virtually all major weapons programmes.

At a time when China is rapidly modernising its armed forces through international collaboration and acquiring advanced technology from abroad, the DRDO has become a prisoner of its own misleading slogan on self-reliance. In preventing the armed forces from buying urgently needed weapons with brave talk, “we can make it here”, and failing to deliver, the DRDO has introduced uncertainty into the government’s defence planning.

According to latest official records, obtained by this newspaper, in 12 of its showpiece projects, none of which is anywhere near completion, the DRDO has overshot sanctioned estimates by Rs 6,013.43 crore in just the last 10 years. The projects include the crucial guided missile programme, the Arjun tank, the Light Combat Aircraft (LCA Tejas), the Samyukta communication system and Kaveri jet engine.

To put this in perspective, this cost overrun is larger than DRDO’s budget of Rs 5,356 crore for the current year. And this is reflective of just 12 projects. It speaks nothing of 427 others, all in varying states of drift. And yet DRDO claims, “Global level R&D and any world-class defence product can be brought out in competitive time and cost.”

These were the words used in a September 22 presentation to the Standing Committee especially in the year of the organisation’s biggest symbolic failure, the Agni-III strategic missile.

But if cost overruns were not enough, consider this: Records show that for all major projects, DRDO’s average time overrun is 10.11 years (see chart). For example, a 16-year delay for the Arjun tank and 12 years for just Phase I of the LCA Tejas.

Responding to a written questionnaire from The Sunday Express, DRDO chief M Natarajan, who has also been involved with one of DRDO’s biggest failures, the Arjun tank, says: “This is a complaint which I hear very often. But one should understand these are all R&D projects. All advanced countries face similar situations. If you say that we are always late, then it would not be fair to us. We generally deliver the goods on time.”

If that were true, Natarajan must have had a trying time explaining that on October 29 at the very first DRDO presentation to new Defence Minister A K Antony. Drawing comparisons with the China-Russia relationship, Defence Secretary Shekhar Dutt reportedly wanted to know why there were such “massive delays” in DRDO projects and persistent technological gaps.

Former IAF chief Air Chief Marshal S Krishnaswamy was more direct. Called in a year after he retired to give testimony, he told the Parliamentary panel: “For improvement in DRDO’s working, it is essential to make fundamental changes in organization and structure with accountability to the user and to do work in time.”

Krishnaswamy couldn’t have been more spot on. For, although DRDO defended its performance by blaming the three services — they change their requirements while development is in progress, they spend too much time on trials — here’s just how bad the current situation is: In the 7th, 8th, 9th and 10th Plans, with DRDO’s failures a compelling factor, according to the Defence Ministry, the country has spent an average of 24.25% of the Defence budget on imported systems to fill in holes caused by DRDO’s non-delivery. That translates into roughly Rs 42,376 crore since 1991-92.

Even the “self-reliance” index, the one plank the entire DRDO justifies itself on, has remained static for the last 15 years. Ironically, in 1991, it was President A P J Abdul Kalam, then DRDO chief, who charted out a plan to push self-reliance up to 70% by 2005. Today’s self-reliance index, according to the Ministry’s own estimate: 30 per cent.

 

Kalam, in fact, started the Self-Reliance Implementation Council (SRIC) in 1992 and monitored it to check for slippages and gaps. But that was more an academic exercise than anything else. For five years now, the council hasn’t met once.

Papers are only “activated” when Parliamentary questions are asked. In what has the armed forces on tenterhooks now, on October 29, the DRDO recommended to Antony that a “certain percentage of defence acquisitions be earmarked exclusively for DRDO and indigenously developed products.”

The total cost of 439 projects currently in progress with DRDO adds up to Rs 16,925 crore, with just 17 of those adding up to Rs 13,560 crore, most of them on time and cost extensions. In September, DRDO asked, in its testimony to the

Parliamentary committee, for an assured allocation of Rs 1,50,000 crore at the rate of Rs 10,000 crore per year for the next 15 years starting 2010.

It’s time Antony asked the DRDO a few questions, beginning with the Integrated Guided Missile Development programme. There is no indigenous weapons project as prestigious as this, neither is there one that matches its record of repeated and expensive failures.

Every project has to fructify within a given timeframe, otherwise it will just begin to drift and lose focus

Air Chief Marshal S Krishnaswamy

DRDO needs greater accountability. We have not been able to get the maximum out of DRDO, even though self-reliance should be our core

Gen V P Malik