In fresh trouble for CBI director Ranjit Sinha, who is facing scrutiny over his alleged meetings with accused in the 2G scam and coal scam cases, the Special Prosecutor in the 2G case Anand Grover has said that such conduct amounts to criminal contempt for which the director could be liable to be prosecuted.
Stating this in a note submitted to Supreme Court on Wednesday, Grover was unforgiving of the CBI director for meeting the accused at his official residence at a time when the probe against them was at a crucial stage of trial. Grover also submitted another sealed cover report before a Bench headed by Chief Justice Hl Dattu detailing the alleged role played by Sinha in interfering with the 2G case investigation based on file notings and visitor diary entries maintained at his residence.
Grover sought permission from the apex court to file both the documents — one in sealed cover and another in open court — a copy of which he supplied to the petitioner NGO Centre for Public Interest litigation. The case, which was scheduled for hearing on Thursday, got postponed as the court is expected to go through the comprehensive report prepared by Grover before taking up the case. The matter is expected to come up after Diwali vacation.
The note by Grover, which is not in sealed cover, even trashed the CBI director's plea to reveal the identity of the whistleblower. Rebutting the demand by Sinha’s lawyer that the petitioner NGO and his lawyer advocate Prashant Bhushan must reveal the identity of the whistleblower to the court, Grover said that every effort must be made to secure the identity of the whistleblower. Since the apex court had even directed Bhushan to reveal the name in a sealed cover which Bhushan refused, Grover said that the order passed by the Court seeking disclosure of whistleblower ought to be recalled.
The note was confined to protection of the whistleblower's identity and did not reveal the CBI director's role in influencing the probe. However, by stating that the director's action would make him liable for criminal contempt, the Special Public Prosecutor gave enough indication of what is in store against the director in the sealed cover.