‘CBI chief meeting 2G accused improper’

Whistleblower acted in public interest and not for publicity, says Special Public Prosecutor

CBI director Ranjit Sinha. File photo

Objecting to the Supreme Court order on revealing the identity of the whistleblower who leaked the visitors’ register at CBI Director Ranjit Sinha’s residence, Special Public Prosecutor in 2G cases, Anand Grover, said the frequent meetings between Mr. Sinha and the accused during the probe and prosecution of the sensitive case, were “definitely improper.”

Mr. Grover said the whistleblower acted in public interest and not for publicity. “The whistleblower’s right to physical safety emerging from his right to life under Article 21 can only be protected by non-disclosure."

‘Whistleblower’s right to life in danger’

Mr. Grover, objecting to the Supreme Court’s directive to advocate Prashant Bhushan to reveal the name of the whistleblower who passed on the guest list maintained at the CBI chief’s residence, said, “The whistleblower’s right to security of his life and physical safety emerging from his right to life under Article 21 can only be protected by non-disclosure of his name.”

The Supreme Court had on September 15 asked advocate Prashant Bhushan to confidentially reveal the name of the source who passed on the guest list maintained at the CBI chief’s residence.

But Mr. Bhushan refused to divulge the name, saying exposure would endanger the source’s life and lead to a breach of trust. In a later hearing on September 22, the court had considered recalling its September 15 order. It had then sought the assistance of Mr. Grover to explain how entertaining allegations against the CBI chief would affect pending and future criminal cases in the scam.

The whistleblower proved his bona fides when, instead of taking any personal credit, he preferred to remain anonymous and approached Mr. Bhushan, the lawyer fighting the 2G case in the Supreme Court, with the information and documents.

He said the court should not insist on disclosure of his identity merely for the sake of disclosure.

He said the information leaked did not concern the personal affairs of the CBI Director. The register was a record of the official meetings held by Mr. Sinha at the camp office in his residence, and so his conduct came under public gaze. Mr. Sinha had no right to argue that the leak was a violation of his right to privacy, he said.