Name source, Supreme Court tells Bhushan

CBI Chief alleged to have met 2G accused at his house

September 15, 2014 12:23 pm | Updated December 04, 2021 11:28 pm IST - New Delhi

A view of the Supreme Court of India in New Delhi. The Supreme Court on Monday directed its registry to keep all documents and affidavits filed by Mr. Sinha in sealed cover and deposit it with Secretary General for safe custody. File photo: Monica Tiwari

A view of the Supreme Court of India in New Delhi. The Supreme Court on Monday directed its registry to keep all documents and affidavits filed by Mr. Sinha in sealed cover and deposit it with Secretary General for safe custody. File photo: Monica Tiwari

The Supreme Court on Monday told lawyer Prashant Bhushan that it would consider his allegation that CBI Director Ranjit Sinha frequently met people accused in the 2G scam, provided he named the source of his information in a sealed cover.

A Bench comprising Justices H.L. Dattu and S.A. Bobde said the affidavit filed by Mr. Bhushan, as the lawyer for the Centre for Public Interest Litigation, whose petition led the court to cancel 122 2G licences, was not in consonance with procedures on how information from whistleblowers should be passed on to the court as evidence. Mr. Bhushan had handed over the visitor register at the CBI chief’s residence and other documents to the court. He said a person dropped them at his house at night.

Bhushan’s charge will tarnish image: CBI chief

In response, CBI Director Ranjit Sinha told the Court that lawyer Prashant Bhushan’s allegation he met several persons accused in the 2G scam should be dismissed with “exemplary costs” as the source of his information was unknown.

“Unless the identity of the whistleblower is known, further proceedings based on the allegations raised would affect the sanctity of this court’s proceedings and the reputation of the CBI director,” senior lawyer Vikas Singh, appearing for Mr. Sinha, contended.

Mr. Bhushan hit back saying, “Why do you want to know the identity of the whistleblower? Identity of the whistleblower needs to given only if the court doubts the authenticity of the evidence.” “If we find there is something hanky-panky, we will order an investigation,” Justice Dattu observed.

The next date of hearing is September 22. Mr. Singh likened Mr. Bhushan’s explanation to someone saying, “I found a packet lying on the road, opened it to find these sensitive documents.” He also alleged that Mr. Bhushan was being “controlled by someone.”

“On the day Mr. Bhushan revealed to the court about the visitor’s register, a newspaper had already reported it that morning. How did they know Mr. Bhushan was going to do exactly that in court,” Mr. Singh asked. The court told Mr. Bhushan to part with the name of whistleblower in a sealed cover.

Top News Today

Sign in to unlock member-only benefits!
  • Access 10 free stories every month
  • Save stories to read later
  • Access to comment on every story
  • Sign-up/manage your newsletter subscriptions with a single click
  • Get notified by email for early access to discounts & offers on our products
Sign in

Comments

Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.

We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of The Hindu and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.