The row over entry register of CBI Director Ranjit Sinha’s residence took an interesting turn on Monday with the Supreme Court hinting it may revise its earlier direction to advocate Prashant Bhushan to disclose the source of the information in a sealed cover. The court agreed its order may cause serious ramifications to pending and future PIls.
With the NGO in the 2G case, Centre for Public Interest litigation, declining to reveal the whistleblower’s identity to the court, a Bench of Justices Hl Dattu and SA Bobde stated that it was open to reconsider its September 15 order as it may end up as a tool in the hands of interested parties to defeat well-minded PIls.
“The order made by us would have its own ramifications, including in cases pending in the court and cases to be filed in future,” the Bench said, in response to CPIl’s application to recall the September 15 order.
The court asked the recently-appointed 2G Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) Anand Grover to study all applications and affidavits filed so far with regard to the controversy surrounding visit by high-profile 2G scam accused to the CBI Director at his residence and suggest whether the order to disclose the source was necessary.
While directing Grover to complete this exercise by October 10, the court asked senior advocate KK Venugopal, who appeared for CBI, to pass on the set of applications, photocopy of the entry register and the accompanying affidavits filed by CBI Director and CPIl to Grover. The Bench gave Grover the liberty to approach the court for seeking any further documents, including the file notings deposited in the court by CBI Director in a sealed cover.
The CPIl, which was represented in court by senior advocate Dushyant Dave and not by Bhushan also signified a change of strategy. As the proceedings had increasingly become hostile with CBI Director’s counsel Vikas Singh accusing Bhushan of acting vindictive towards his client
Dave started by offering apologies to the court for the inability of his client to disclose whistleblower’s name.
When the court asked, “Where is PrashantIJ” Bhushan joined Dave on the front row. Dave told the bench that he even chided Bhushan for his “overenthusiastic” approach and read the application to show that the prayer to remove the CBI Director, was not “well-drafted”.
Dave said, “This is not an attempt to assassinate the character of CBI Director who holds a high office,” as he took the court to the predominant issue in the application being to insulate the 2G probe team from any alleged interference. The entry register, according to him, gave indications that several accused in the 2G scam had met Sinha at his official residence.
The CBI Director’s counsel asked the court to dismiss CPIl’s application and maintain the earlier order on disclosure of source. But the court said, “It is a sensitive case. We have our doubts to accede to your demand.”