Should failure analysis reports of public scientific agencies like ISRO be made public? Critically analyse.

A failure analysis report finds the root cause of a mission failure and sets out the fixes. PSLV-C62, carrying DRDO's EOS-N1 and 14 co-passenger satellites, failed in January 2026 after a third-stage (PS3) anomaly [2]. It came after successive PSLV setbacks, and no detailed root-cause report has been made public. The answer lies in a middle path: share as much as possible, and hold back only what security requires.

Case for public disclosure

• Accountability: ISRO is publicly funded. Parliament has asked about the PSLV and SSLV programmes, and the government tied return to flight to the corrective actions of a National Level Expert Committee [3]. Publishing the report would let outsiders check that those actions were carried out.
• Stopping repeat failures: The fixes to the modified PS3 cover raw material acceptance criteria and assembly procedures as well as design margins [1]. That points to gaps in quality checks across the production chain. Outside review makes it harder for a partial fix to pass unnoticed.
• Commercial trust: C62 was a dedicated commercial mission of NSIL [2]. Rideshare customers who lost payloads need to know the root cause before they book again, especially as IN-SPACe opens the sector to private players.
• Scientific ecosystem: Private launch start-ups and academic institutions can learn from findings that are shared.

Case against full disclosure

• Strategic sensitivity: EOS-N1 was a DRDO payload [2]. A full report could reveal details of the satellite's capabilities.
• Technology protection: Reports name parts, suppliers and design limits, which is valuable information for competitors.
• Institutional culture: If reports go public, engineers may report problems less candidly in internal reviews.

Assessment These risks justify redacting sensitive material, not keeping the whole report secret. The government has already told Parliament about the committee and the return-to-flight conditions without any harm [3]. The PS3 fault concerns a solid motor's materials and assembly [1], and explaining it need not reveal anything about the satellite on board.

Way forward

• Publish a redacted summary covering the root cause, the corrective actions and how they were verified.
• Share the full report with a Parliamentary Standing Committee in confidence.
• Make it a rule that a new launch needs sign-off that the previous failure's actions are closed, which matters even more for human-rated Gaganyaan.

Selective transparency of this kind protects both security and public trust. It meets the constitutional value of answerability and lets ISRO win back confidence through openness about its reliability.