Ex-BrahMos Engineer Nishant Agarwal Sentenced to Life for Espionage

**Nagpur Court Sentences Ex-BrahMos Engineer to Life Imprisonment for Espionage**
In a significant ruling on Monday, the Nagpur district court sentenced Nishant Agarwal, a former engineer at BrahMos Aerospace Pvt Ltd, to life imprisonment under the Official Secrets Act for espionage activities favoring Pakistan’s intelligence agency, ISI. Alongside the life sentence, Aggarwal is to serve 14 years of rigorous imprisonment and pay a fine of Rs 3,000.
Agarwal’s conviction came under various sections of the Official Secrets Act (OSA) for illegally possessing classified missile information on his personal laptop, which was subsequently leaked. Suspicions arose that he fell victim to a ‘honeytrap’ set up by Pakistani intelligence operatives. The court’s decision was announced by Special Public Prosecutor Jyoti Vajani, highlighting the severity of Agarwal’s offences.
Arrested in 2018 through a joint operation by military intelligence and Anti-Terrorism Squads (ATS) of Uttar Pradesh and Maharashtra, Agarwal faced charges under the stringent OSA and the Indian Penal Code. His work at the BrahMos facility’s technical research section in Nagpur was critically compromised due to these actions, betraying sensitive technical data to Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI).
BrahMos Aerospace, a collaboration between India’s Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) and Russia’s Military Industrial Consortium (NPO Mashinostroyenia), represents a key element of India’s defense infrastructure.
Despite nearly five years in custody, Agarwal was granted bail by the Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court last April, underlining concerns over the slow pace of his trial and potential violations of his fundamental rights.
The case brings to light the broader implications and controversies surrounding the Official Secrets Act— a colonial-era law retained post-independence to protect state secrets and national security. Critics argue that its broad scope and vague definitions pose challenges to transparency and accountability, especially in the context of the Right to Information Act.
This ruling underscores the judiciary’s stringent stance on national security breaches, reflecting the delicate balance between safeguarding sensitive information and upholding individual rights under the law.