<p>The Delhi High Court has dismissed a plea by Major General (retired) V K Singh for quashing a 2007 CBI FIR and charge sheet filed against him for allegedly revealing secret information by publication of his book <em>India's External Intelligence- Secrets of Research and Analysis Wing (RAW)</em>. </p>.<p>In his plea, Singh contended he has sought to highlight two major issues, that is, lack of accountability and corruption in RAW, the country's external intelligence agency. </p>.<p>A single bench of Justice Mukta Gupta, however, noted but the grievance of the CBI is with regard to disclosure of the names of the officer, location of the places and recommendations of the Group of Ministers etc. </p>.<p>"What prejudices the national security cannot be decided by the courts...Thus, it would be a matter of trial after the witnesses are examined to see whether the revelations by the petitioner in his book is likely to affect the sovereignty and integrity of India and/or the security of the State," the bench said.</p>.<p><strong>Read | <a data-ved="2ahUKEwjCs_PLv6L_AhXewjgGHaMtBS8QxfQBKAB6BAgHEAE" href="https://www.deccanherald.com/national/west/drdo-scientist-arrested-for-giving-secret-information-to-pakistan-1215633.html">DRDO scientist arrested for giving secret information to Pakistan</a></strong></p>.<p>The CBI had registered the case against Singh on September 20, 2007 under the Official Secrets Act on a complaint filed by B Bhattacharjee, Deputy Secretary, Government of India, Cabinet Secretariat.</p>.<p>In its 49-page order, the bench said even though the “entire tenor of the book of the petitioner highlights certain irregularities etc, at RAW”, however, the CBI’s grievance was with respect “to the names of the officer, location of the places and recommendations of the GOM etc”.</p>.<p>"Even in the present case, the recommendations of the GOM, which were deleted from publication, have been reproduced verbatim by the petitioner," the bench said.</p>.<p>The court also pointed out that the petitioner has heavily relied upon some other books and articles wherein references have been made to the recommendations of the GOM, but it may be noted that in none of those articles or publications have the former been reproduced verbatim.</p>
<p>The Delhi High Court has dismissed a plea by Major General (retired) V K Singh for quashing a 2007 CBI FIR and charge sheet filed against him for allegedly revealing secret information by publication of his book <em>India's External Intelligence- Secrets of Research and Analysis Wing (RAW)</em>. </p>.<p>In his plea, Singh contended he has sought to highlight two major issues, that is, lack of accountability and corruption in RAW, the country's external intelligence agency. </p>.<p>A single bench of Justice Mukta Gupta, however, noted but the grievance of the CBI is with regard to disclosure of the names of the officer, location of the places and recommendations of the Group of Ministers etc. </p>.<p>"What prejudices the national security cannot be decided by the courts...Thus, it would be a matter of trial after the witnesses are examined to see whether the revelations by the petitioner in his book is likely to affect the sovereignty and integrity of India and/or the security of the State," the bench said.</p>.<p><strong>Read | <a data-ved="2ahUKEwjCs_PLv6L_AhXewjgGHaMtBS8QxfQBKAB6BAgHEAE" href="https://www.deccanherald.com/national/west/drdo-scientist-arrested-for-giving-secret-information-to-pakistan-1215633.html">DRDO scientist arrested for giving secret information to Pakistan</a></strong></p>.<p>The CBI had registered the case against Singh on September 20, 2007 under the Official Secrets Act on a complaint filed by B Bhattacharjee, Deputy Secretary, Government of India, Cabinet Secretariat.</p>.<p>In its 49-page order, the bench said even though the “entire tenor of the book of the petitioner highlights certain irregularities etc, at RAW”, however, the CBI’s grievance was with respect “to the names of the officer, location of the places and recommendations of the GOM etc”.</p>.<p>"Even in the present case, the recommendations of the GOM, which were deleted from publication, have been reproduced verbatim by the petitioner," the bench said.</p>.<p>The court also pointed out that the petitioner has heavily relied upon some other books and articles wherein references have been made to the recommendations of the GOM, but it may be noted that in none of those articles or publications have the former been reproduced verbatim.</p>