A serving Lieutenant Colonel of the Indian Army, posted at Army Headquarters in New Delhi, is facing a court martial on nine charges relating to alleged contact with Pakistani intelligence operatives and the presence of banned applications on his smartphone as reported by Man Aman Singh Chhina of indianexpress.
The officer is posted in the Staff Duties (SD) Directorate at Army Headquarters and is currently attached to 226 Company, Army Service Corps (Supply) Type ‘G’. The charges pertain to the period when he served as General Staff Officer-1 (GSO-1) at the SD Directorate.
According to the charge sheet, the first three charges have been framed under Section 45 of the Army Act, which addresses unbecoming conduct of an officer. These allege that between 24 December 2019 and 16 September 2022 he was in contact with two telephone numbers described as suspected Pakistan Intelligence Operative numbers, as well as with ten Pakistan-based numbers beginning with the country code +92.
He is further accused of contacting a foreign national identified as “Anatoly” between January 2020 and August 2022 without the required permission.
The remaining charges include possession of banned applications on his smartphone. The charge sheet itself does not record a finding of guilt. Under military law, the officer is entitled to a trial by court martial, at which the prosecution must prove each allegation and the accused may present a defence.
The Indian Army maintains strict regulations on personal communications and the use of unauthorised applications by serving personnel, particularly those holding sensitive staff appointments at Army Headquarters. Similar disciplinary proceedings have been initiated in earlier cases involving alleged unauthorised contact with Pakistani numbers or intelligence operatives, reflecting a consistent institutional emphasis on security protocols. The officer’s identity has not been publicly disclosed.
The court martial process will determine whether the allegations are established. No official statement from Army Headquarters on the specific case was available at the time of reporting.
