The Supreme Court listed for hearing on Tuesday an application by Satish Babu Sana, the Hyderabad-based “whistleblower” alleging a threat to his life.
Mr. Sana’s complaint of corruption and extortion against CBI officials had led to an FIR against the agency’s Special Director, Rakesh Asthana.
Mr. Sana, through advocate K. Parameshwar, urged a Bench, led by Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi, on Monday to order the Hyderabad Police to provide him protection. Mr. Parameshwar sought an urgent hearing from the court, after which Chief Justice Gogoi asked him to hand over the details.
CVC probe
If Mr. Sana has acted as “whistle-blower and complainant” against Mr. Asthana, who was asked to go on leave, he also figures prominently in the ongoing Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) inquiry against exiled CBI Director Alok Verma. The CVC order of October 23, which divested the functions of CBI Director from Mr. Verma, highlights the allegation that he was paid a ₹2 crore bribe by Mr. Sana to avoid further interrogation in a case.
On October 26, the Supreme Court ordered the CVC to complete its inquiry in 14 days by November 12.
It also appointed former Supreme Court judge, Justice A.K. Patnaik, to supervise the inquiry and ensure that it was completed in time.
In his application, Mr Sana said he had already written a letter to Justice Patnaik “stating his readiness and willingness to give statements under his supervision”.
His questioning under the supervision of Justice Patnaik would only serve the interests of justice, he said. After all, Mr. Sana said, he had risked his life to come forward as a whistle-blower in the fight against corruption.
The application alleges that the CBI had summoned him in “haste” on the very day [October 26] that the Supreme Court ordered the CVC inquiry to continue.
It said Mr. Sana was concerned “about the hasty manner in which the CBI summoned him and apprehended that it may be an attempt to “modify/withdraw his statements”.
Mr. Sana’s application, also drew the court’s attention to the fact that the change in the investigating officer in the FIR against Mr. Asthana and other “surrounding circumstances” put his life in danger.
