BrahMos missile misfiring into Pakistan cost India ₹24 crore, Centre tells Delhi HC

The accidental firing of a BrahMos combat missile into Pakistan in March last year affected the relations of the nation.

With the neighbouring country and led to a loss of ₹24 crore to the state exchequer, the Union government told the Delhi high court while justifying the dismissal of three IAF (Indian Air Force) officers, including a Wing Commander, for gross negligence.

Opposing a petition by Wing Commander Abhinav Sharma against his termination from service, the Centre in a short affidavit said the trial of three officers by a court martial was “inexpedient”, especially considering the sensitive nature of evidence on record and “also the fact that the international community was interested to know the important practical details regarding the firing of missile”.

“Considering the sensitive nature of the subject matter having widespread ramifications for the security of the State, a conscious and considered decision was taken in good faith to terminate the service of the petitioner under the President’s pleasure clause. Such a decision has been taken in the Indian Air Force after 23 years as facts and circumstances of the case warranted such action,” the Union government said.

The petitioner Wing Commander Sharma challenged the termination order issued against him under section 18 of Air Force Act, 1950. He was posted as an engineering officer when the incident occurred.

In his petition filed through advocate Jaitegan Singh, the IAF officer contended that he was imparted professional and practical training only for duties which are purely of maintenance in nature and not on conduct of operations. He said he performed all his duties as per the Combat SOP governing the operations and that the cause of the incident was solely operational in nature.

Defending its decision of terminating the officers, the Centre said that the decision was actuated by public interest without any kind of mala fide, adding that the petitioner was provided all due opportunities during the proceedings of the Court of Inquiry to present his case and he was given great latitude in this regard.

The Centre said that the decision to terminate the service of the petitioner was objective, just & required due to the peculiar nature of the subject matter. It said that besides causing potential threat to any airborne/ground object/personnel and also causing damage to the reputation of the IAF and the nation at large , the government exchequer lost money in the accidental firing.

“It is indeed ironic that the petitioner has attempted to shift his blame to other officers knowing fully well that his failures contributed significantly to the launch of the missile,” the reply said.

The Centre said it would not discuss the evidence on record in its reply as it will have an adverse impact on the security of the State. It, however, added that the proceedings of the Court of Inquiry will be shown to the court to duly establish the lapses of the petitioner.

“Likewise, it was also decided that initiation of action under Section 19 of the Air Force Act, 1950 read with Rule 16 of the Air Force Rules, 1969 by issuing a Show Cause Notice for dismissal/removal from the Service would bring the sensitive and secret issues in full public domain which would be prejudicial to the security interests of the State. Accordingly, a considered decision was taken by the competent authority to terminate the services of the petitioner and two other above stated officers under Section 18 of the Air Force Act, 1950, which stipulates that ‘every person subject to the Air Force Act, 1950 shall hold office during the pleasure of the President,” the reply added.

On March 9 last year, India accidentally fired a BrahMos missile into Pakistan, with human error causing the unprecedented incident. Two days after the accidental launch, India on March 11 attributed the incident to a technical malfunction during routine maintenance.

Defence minister Rajnath Singh also said that standard operating procedures (SOPs) for “operations, maintenance, and inspection” of such systems were being reviewed.

While Pakistan registered a protest over the “unprovoked violation of its airspace by a supersonic flying object of Indian origin”, both sides avoided a hostile or escalatory tone.

Six months later, on August 23, three IAF officers were sacked after a court of inquiry held them responsible for deviating from SOPs. Wing Commander Sharma moved the court on March 1 challenging this decision.

On the last date, additional solicitor general (ASG) Chetan Sharma, for the Centre, told the court that the accidental firing embarassed India before the international community and could have led to a warlike situation between the two neighbouring countries.

ASG Sharma said the petitioner was gainfully employed with a multinational company with a high salary, and approached the court after more than six months since his termination order was passed.

The court, however, issued notices to the ministry of defence, the chief of air staff and others on Sharma’s petition and sought a detailed response within six weeks.