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.
That is not an attack on DRDO.
That is the minimum respect owed to DRDO.
JAI HIND.
