Order IX of SC Rules requires affidavit to be supported by evidence, court tells Prashant Bhushan
The Supreme Court has sought the identity of the whistleblower who supplied classified documents to advocate Prashant Bhushan alleging that CBI Director Ranjit Sinha met several 2G scam accused and representatives of scam-linked companies at his residence over a period of time.
Giving Bhushan time till September 22 to produce the information in a sealed cover, the SC Bench of Justices Hl Dattu and SA Bobde made it clear that they were seeking the information only to comply with the Order IX Rule 13 of the Supreme Court Rules which requires any affidavit based on information to be supported with source of information.
“In our opinion, before we pass any order on the affidavit, we request Prashant Bhushan to disclose to us the source of information which forms the basis of averments and information contained in his application,” the Bench said.
However, Bhushan contended that the disclosure of source becomes necessary only where doubts arise on the authenticity of information. “I can stake my life on the fact that this ‘Register’ is original. It is impossible to fabricate a register of this kind,” Bhushan said. On the file notings, he submitted that the lawyer for the CBI could vouch for the authenticity of the notings.
CBI counsel and senior advocate KK Venugopal told the court that so long as he remained the CBI lawyer it was impossible for him to comment on the head of the organisation that he represents.
The court pointed out that the CBI Director’s affidavit filed in sealed cover raised doubts about the authenticity of the Register. Sinha accused a Mumbai-based businessman, who is also a media mogul, to be behind the selective disclosure as his publication alone revealed beforehand the original register was submitted in court. “This shows somebody is controlling him (Bhushan),” Sinha’s lawyer Vikas Singh said.
The court said that the purpose of knowing the source was to ascertain the authenticity of the material as it concerned the reputation of the CBI Director and relates to an ongoing probe. “We wish to know if this person had access to the entries made. Once we realise something is hanky-panky, we will order investigation and proceed with the matter,” the Bench said.
Bhushan had informed the court that a whistleblower came to his residence on September 7 night and handed over the original register. Bhushan relied on certain file notings exchanged among CBI officers to show how the CBI Director overturned the decision to chargesheet former Telecom Minister Dayanidhi Maran in the Aircel-Maxis case. Bhushan even produced a classified note exchanged between Sinha and then Special Public Prosecutor UU lalit. The notes showed Sinha trying to save one of the 2G accused, Reliance Telecom.
Sinha refuted these charges claiming he opened the FIPB probe in the Maxis case by approving the note forwarded by Joint Director. He deposited the entire record with file noting in a sealed cover, which showed that he was not the only one to oppose decision to charge sheet Maran.
Venugopal intervened that such disclosures could be used by accused to their advantage during trial. The court even issued notice on an application by Reliance Telecom seeking a copy of all records filed by the CBI Director and Bhushan in the court. This application will be dealt separately on September 24.