That the Supreme Court is now willing to take another look at its decision calling for the revelation of the identity of the whistle-blower who handed over a register of visitors to the residence of the Director of the Central Bureau of Investigation, Ranjit Sinha, is in itself welcome. Earlier, citing procedures laid down for passing on information to be used as evidence, the Court had wanted the name of the whistle-blower to be submitted in a sealed cover, sparking fears this could make the whistle-blower vulnerable to harm. After the Centre for Public Interest Litigation, the petitioner in the case, filed an affidavit refusing to name the whistle-blower on the grounds that it may put the informant under serious risk of bodily harm or harassment, the Court seems to be having a rethink on the correctness of insisting that the identity be revealed. There are clearly other effective means of obtaining the information without the risks involved in revealing the name of the whistle-blower. In view of the serious nature of the allegations against the Director, who is reported to have frequently met some of the accused in the 2G spectrum corruption case at his residence, the Court can look into other material evidence. With some parts of the material produced having been confirmed, it can be the basis for the Court ordering a probe to find out if Mr. Sinha did indeed meet persons accused in the 2G case, and if he did, his reasons for doing so. In extremely sensitive cases, involving persons commanding power and influence, complainants might be wary of risking their name being made public. Even the contents of a sealed cover given to the Court could be handled by persons other than judges, and there is no guarantee of secrecy.
The Whistleblowers Protection Act provides protection to whistle-blowers from harassment, but not complete anonymity. Under the Act, no action need be taken on the basis of a complaint if there is no disclosure of the identity of the complainant. While the authorities are obliged to conceal the identity of the complainant making a disclosure in public interest, the Act does not envisage a system wherein the complainant can remain completely anonymous. This might discourage those who want to make public interest disclosures but do not wish to be part of the investigative process for whatever reason. True, there is merit in asking the complainant to reveal his or her identity so as to avoid the possibility of the redress system getting bogged down in processing frivolous complaints made out of malice. However, exceptions can always be made in exceptional cases. The supposed visitors’ register at Mr. Sinha’s residence is one such exceptional ‘disclosure’ that would need to be pursued with utmost seriousness.
