OUR INITIATIVE

Helpful Foundation has initiated a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India to strengthen national security accountability, institutional transparency, and constitutional governance.

This initiative does not target any individual. It seeks systemic reform to ensure that preventable national security failures are addressed through lawful, transparent, and accountable mechanisms, in the larger public interest.

WHY IS THIS PIL NECESSARY

National security today extends beyond borders and warfare. It includes:

Internal security and public safety
Intelligence coordination and preventive action
Cyber, economic, and financial threats
Institutional preparedness and response systems

Repeated incidents across the country indicate gaps in accountability, coordination, and oversight, despite the presence of multiple security institutions.

Citizens bear the consequences of such gaps—through loss of life, liberty, economic stability, and trust in governance.

This PIL seeks to ensure that constitutional responsibility is matched with institutional accountability.

WHAT THE PIL SEEKS (CORE OBJECTIVES)

Through this Public Interest Litigation, Helpful Foundation prays for:

A National Security Accountability Framework
Independent review mechanisms for major security lapses
Clear institutional responsibility (not individual blame)
Periodic reporting and transparency in preparedness systems
Protection of citizens’ fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21

The objective is reform, not accusation.

WHY PUBLIC SUPPORT MATTERS

Public Interest Litigation of this nature requires:

Extensive legal research and drafting
Constitutional law expertise
Court filing, compliance, and follow-up
Data analysis and policy documentation

Unlike private litigation, PILs serve the public at large, but are funded privately.

Your support enables this constitutional effort to proceed independently, responsibly, and without external influence.

CROWDFUNDING FOR CONSTITUTIONAL CAUSE

This campaign is a transparent, citizen-supported legal initiative.

Funds will be used strictly for:

Supreme Court drafting and filing expenses
Advocate and legal research costs
Documentation, affidavits, and compliance work
Statutory and procedural expenses

No funds are used for political activity, protests, or media trials.

OUR COMMITMENT TO TRANSPARENCY

Helpful Foundation commits that:

All donations are used only for lawful legal purposes
Donors receive periodic updates on case progress
No donor influences legal strategy or prayers
Full compliance with Indian laws and regulations

This is a constitutional accountability initiative, not a campaign against any authority.

WHO CAN SUPPORT

Concerned citizens
Legal professionals
Policy researchers
Retired officials and experts
Anyone who believes that security must come with accountability

Support is open to individuals from India and abroad, subject to applicable laws.

HOW YOU CAN CONTRIBUTE

Option 1: Financial Contribution

Support the PIL through lawful donations to sustain legal proceedings.

Option 2: Knowledge & Research Support

Experts may contribute policy insights, reports, or legal research material.

Option 3: Awareness Sharing

Share this initiative responsibly, without sensationalism.

IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER

This initiative does not disclose classified information
It does not interfere with ongoing operations
It does not accuse or defame any individual or institution
All content is published in good faith and in the public interest

OUR MESSAGE

“A strong nation is built not only on security, but on accountability, constitutional discipline, and public trust.”

Support Constitutional Accountability

Your contribution strengthens institutional transparency and the rule of law.

Together, let us ensure that national security governance remains responsible, accountable, and citizen-centric.

Support the PIL – Contribute Now

WHY YOUR DONATION MATTERS

Helpful Foundation is pursuing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India to strengthen national security accountability, institutional transparency, and constitutional governance.

This initiative serves the public at large and seeks systemic reform, not personal or political outcomes.

Your contribution directly supports the legal process, research, and compliance required to responsibly pursue this constitutional matter.

HOW YOUR DONATION WILL BE USED

All contributions will be utilised strictly and exclusively for lawful purposes connected with the PIL, including:

Supreme Court drafting and filing expenses
Legal research and documentation
Advocate fees and court compliance costs
Affidavits, annexures, and procedural requirements

No funds are used for political activity, protests, lobbying, or media campaigns.

TAX BENEFIT UNDER SECTION 80G

Donations made to Helpful Foundation are eligible for tax deduction under Section 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961, subject to applicable provisions.

✔ Donation receipt will be issued
✔ PAN details will be mentioned on the receipt
✔ Receipt will be shared via email after confirmation

Donors are advised to consult their tax advisor for applicability based on individual circumstances.

ELIGIBILITY & MODE OF DONATION

✔ Donations Accepted

Indian citizens
Donations in INR
Online transfer (UPI / Net Banking / Bank Transfer)

❌ Donations Not Accepted

Anonymous donations
Cash donations beyond permissible limits
Donations that violate Indian law or regulatory norms

OUR TRANSPARENCY COMMITMENT

Helpful Foundation ensures that:

Donations are recorded and accounted for as per law
Funds are used only for stated charitable objectives
Donors receive timely acknowledgment and updates
Financial records are maintained for audit and compliance

This initiative is conducted in good faith, with full legal responsibility.

MAKE A DONATION

Support a Constitutional Cause

Your contribution helps uphold accountability, transparency, and the rule of law.

Donate Now (INR)

Every contribution—big or small—strengthens this public-interest effort.

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

Is my donation refundable?

No. Donations are voluntary and non-refundable.

Will my donation influence the case?

No. Legal strategy and prayers remain independent and court-driven.

Will my name be made public?

No donor details are disclosed without consent.

Can I donate from outside India?

Only if compliant with applicable Indian laws. Please contact us before contributing.

LEGAL DISCLAIMER

This donation does not create any client-lawyer relationship
Contribution does not confer any legal right in the PIL
Helpful Foundation retains full discretion over legal conduct of the matter
All activities comply with Indian laws and Supreme Court guidelines

FINAL NOTE

“Supporting public interest litigation is not charity—it is an investment in constitutional governance.”

Thank you for standing with Helpful Foundation in strengthening accountability and public trust.

WHY NATIONAL SECURITY ACCOUNTABILITY IN INDIA REMAINS WEAK

(A Structural & Institutional Analysis)

1. NO STATUTORY NATIONAL SECURITY ACCOUNTABILITY LAW

India does not have a dedicated law that:

Defines national security accountability
Fixes responsibility after major security failures
Mandates independent post-incident review

Most national security decisions are taken through executive instructions, not enforceable statutes.
As a result, accountability remains discretionary, not legal.

2. ABSENCE OF INDEPENDENT OVERSIGHT MECHANISM

Unlike several democracies:

There is no independent national security oversight body
No permanent review commission for intelligence or security failures
No mandatory public or parliamentary disclosure framework

Post-incident reviews, where they occur, are:

Internal
Confidential
Non-binding

This creates a closed accountability loop.

3. INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES OPERATE WITHOUT A STATUTORY FRAMEWORK

Key intelligence agencies operate:

Without a comprehensive parliamentary statute
Without defined legal duties or penalties for omission
Without an external audit or review authority

This results in:

Limited transparency
No enforceable duty to act on threat inputs
No institutional consequence for failure to prevent foreseeable threats

4. DIFFUSED RESPONSIBILITY ACROSS MULTIPLE AUTHORITIES

National security functions are spread across:

Multiple intelligence and enforcement agencies
Prime Minister’s Office
National Security Council Secretariat
Ministry of Home Affairs
Ministry of Defence

However:

There is no single accountable authority for the coordination failure
Responsibility becomes fragmented, making failure attribution difficult

This diffusion weakens the enforceability of accountability.

5. PARLIAMENTARY OVERSIGHT IS LIMITED

While Parliament has oversight powers:

There is no standing Parliamentary Committee with full access to the national security functioning
Security matters are often exempt from detailed legislative scrutiny
Confidentiality is frequently cited to limit accountability

This reduces democratic checks without compromising secrecy.

6. JUDICIAL REVIEW IS REACTIVE, NOT PREVENTIVE

Courts can intervene:

After damage has occurred
When fundamental rights are violated

However:

There is no preventive judicial framework for national security governance
Courts rely on executive disclosures, often in sealed covers

This limits proactive accountability.

7. NO MANDATORY POST-INCIDENT ACCOUNTABILITY PROCESS

In many governance failures, there is:

No compulsory timeline for inquiry
No fixed remedial action framework
No published findings

As a result:

Lessons are not institutionalised
Similar lapses recur

8. LACK OF CITIZEN-CENTRIC ACCOUNTABILITY

Citizens affected by security failures often face:

No clear grievance mechanism
No access to the findings of inquiries
No legal right to demand systemic reform

This weakens public trust and constitutional confidence.

9. OVER-RELIANCE ON EXECUTIVE DISCRETION

National security accountability in India largely depends on:

Internal discipline
Administrative instructions
Political will

Without statutory backing, such discretion:

Cannot be judicially enforced
Varies across governments
Lacks continuity and consistency

WHY THIS MATTERS CONSTITUTIONALLY

Weak accountability directly impacts:

Article 21 – Right to life and security
Article 14 – Protection against arbitrariness
Doctrine of Public Trust – State power held for citizens

A strong security system requires strong accountability, not secrecy without responsibility.

PURPOSE OF THE SUPREME COURT PIL

Helpful Foundation’s PIL seeks to:

Strengthen institutional accountability without compromising security
Introduce statutory and oversight safeguards
Ensure that preventable failures are lawfully reviewed
Reinforce constitutional governance

This is a reform-oriented constitutional initiative, not an adversarial campaign.

INDIA VS USA

National Security Accountability — A Comparative Gap Analysis

WHY A COMPARISON MATTERS

Comparative constitutional analysis helps identify structural strengths and weaknesses in governance systems.
This comparison does not question national intent or capability, but examines accountability mechanisms within democratic frameworks.

1. STATUTORY FRAMEWORK

India

No comprehensive national security accountability statute
Intelligence agencies largely function without parliamentary legislation
Accountability relies on executive instructions

United States

A clear statutory framework governing national security institutions
Intelligence agencies operate under enacted laws
Defined legal duties and oversight obligations

Gap: India lacks enforceable statutory accountability.

2. LEGISLATIVE OVERSIGHT

India

No dedicated Parliamentary committee with full national security oversight
Limited access to intelligence functioning
Oversight largely informal or post-facto

United States

Permanent Congressional Committees on Intelligence
Mandatory classified briefings
Budgetary and operational scrutiny

Gap: Weak legislative supervision in India.

3. INDEPENDENT OVERSIGHT & AUDIT

India

No independent oversight authority for security failures
Internal reviews are confidential and discretionary

United States

Inspectors General within security agencies
Statutorily mandated audits and reports
Independent review commissions after major failures

Gap: Absence of independent audit mechanisms in India.

4. POST-INCIDENT ACCOUNTABILITY

India

No mandatory inquiry framework
Findings rarely published
No fixed responsibility matrix

United States

Mandatory post-incident reviews
Findings shared with Congress
Institutional reforms follow inquiries

Gap: Lack of structured consequence management in India.

5. INTELLIGENCE GOVERNANCE

India

Agencies not governed by comprehensive parliamentary law
No defined statutory duties to act on intelligence inputs

United States

The intelligence community is governed by federal statutes
DNI ensures coordination and accountability

Gap: India lacks codified intelligence governance.

6. JUDICIAL OVERSIGHT

India

Strong PIL jurisdiction, but reactive
Reliance on sealed covers
Limited preventive supervision

United States

Specialised courts (e.g., FISA Court)
Regular judicial oversight of intelligence activities

Gap: Limited structured judicial oversight in India.

7. TRANSPARENCY & REPORTING

India

No statutory reporting obligation to Parliament
Limited public disclosure

United States

Annual threat assessments
Declassified summaries
Congressional reporting obligations

Gap: Minimal transparency norms in India.

8. FIXING RESPONSIBILITY

India

Institutional failures often go unassigned
Responsibility diffused across agencies

United States

Clear departmental accountability
Agency heads answer to Congress

Gap: Lack of consequence-oriented accountability in India.

9. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION & TRUST

India

Citizens have no formal mechanism to demand accountability
Reliance on litigation for redress

United States

Public reporting and oversight improve trust
Legal avenues supported by statutory disclosures

Gap: Weak citizen-centric accountability in India.

COMPARATIVE SUMMARY TABLE

Parameter	India	USA
Accountability Law	❌ None	✔ Yes
Intelligence Statute	❌ Limited	✔ Comprehensive
Legislative Oversight	❌ Weak	✔ Strong
Independent Audit	❌ Absent	✔ Mandatory
Post-Incident Review	❌ Discretionary	✔ Compulsory
Judicial Supervision	✔ Reactive	✔ Structured
Transparency	❌ Limited	✔ Periodic
Responsibility Fixation	❌ Diffused	✔ Defined

🇮🇳 India vs 🇬🇧 United Kingdom — Comparative Summary Table

Parameter	India	United Kingdom
Accountability Law	❌ No comprehensive intelligence accountability statute	✔ Yes – Intelligence Services Act, Investigatory Powers Act
Intelligence Statute	❌ Limited & fragmented (IB/RAW function via executive orders)	✔ Comprehensive statutory framework governing MI5, MI6, GCHQ
Legislative Oversight	❌ Weak (no permanent Parliamentary Intelligence Committee)	✔ Strong – Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament (ISC)
Independent Audit	❌ Absent (no external statutory audit mechanism)	✔ Mandatory – Independent Commissioners & Investigatory Powers Commissioner
Post-Incident Review	❌ Discretionary, executive-controlled	✔ Compulsory – statutory inquiries & commissioner reviews
Judicial Supervision	✔ Reactive (courts intervene post-violation)	✔ Structured & proactive – Judicial Commissioners authorize surveillance
Transparency	❌ Limited (RTI exclusions; classified functioning)	✔ Periodic & institutional – public ISC and IPCO reports
Responsibility Fixation	❌ Diffused (no clear statutory liability chain)	✔ Defined – agency heads, ministers, and commissioners accountable

CONSTITUTIONAL IMPLICATION FOR INDIA

Weak accountability affects:

Article 21 — Right to life and security
Article 14 — Protection against arbitrariness
Rule of Law — No authority without responsibility

The goal is not imitation, but adaptation of best practices within India’s constitutional framework.

HOW THE SUPREME COURT PIL ADDRESSES THIS GAP

Helpful Foundation’s PIL seeks:

A statutory accountability framework
Independent oversight compatible with national security
Clear institutional responsibility
Strengthened parliamentary and judicial checks

KEY MESSAGE

“National security is strongest where power is balanced with accountability.”

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

Is This Initiative Anti-Government or Anti-Security?

Q1. Is Helpful Foundation’s PIL anti-government?

No.
This initiative is not against the Government, any ministry, or any individual office-holder.

The PIL is directed at strengthening constitutional governance, not opposing the executive. It seeks systemic reform, not personal accountability or political outcomes.

Courts have consistently held that constructive judicial review strengthens democracy, not weakens it.

Q2. Is this initiative anti-national or anti-security?

Absolutely not.
The PIL is founded on the principle that national security becomes stronger—not weaker—when accountability is clear, lawful, and institutionalised.

Security without accountability risks:

Repetition of preventable failures
Loss of public trust
Arbitrary decision-making

Accountability ensures preparedness, coordination, and credibility.

Q3. Does this PIL interfere with security operations?

No.
The PIL:

Does not seek disclosure of classified information
Does not interfere with ongoing operations
Does not question tactical or field-level decisions

All prayers are policy-oriented and forward-looking, respecting operational confidentiality.

Q4. Does this PIL accuse any individual or officer?

No.
The PIL:

Names no individual
Seeks institutional accountability, not personal blame
Avoids criminal allegations or disciplinary demands

It focuses on frameworks, systems, and governance structures.

Q5. Why approach the Supreme Court instead of the Government?

The Supreme Court is the constitutional guardian of fundamental rights.

Where:

Issues affect citizens nationwide
Multiple institutions are involved
Constitutional standards require clarification

Approaching the Court is lawful, appropriate, and democratic.

Q6. Is this a political or activist campaign?

No.
This is:

A legal and constitutional initiative
Conducted through court proceedings
Governed by judicial scrutiny and legal ethics

There are no political affiliations, slogans, or agendas involved.

Q7. Could accountability harm national security?

On the contrary.
Global experience shows that:

Clear accountability improves coordination
Independent oversight reduces institutional blind spots
Transparent review strengthens deterrence and preparedness

Security and accountability are complementary, not conflicting.

Q8. Why should citizens support this initiative?

Because:

National security impacts every citizen’s life and liberty
Accountability protects both institutions and people
Strong governance builds long-term national resilience

Public support ensures the PIL remains independent, responsible, and citizen-driven.

Q9. Will donors or supporters influence the case?

No.

Donations do not confer legal rights
Legal strategy remains independent
The Court determines outcomes, not contributors

This maintains the integrity of the process.

Q10. What is the core message of this initiative?

“This initiative seeks to strengthen national security by reinforcing accountability, constitutional discipline, and public trust—without compromising secrecy or sovereignty.”