OPEN APP
Home >Politics >Policy >CBI director case: Prashant Bhushan refuses to name whistleblower

New Delhi: Non-profit organization Centre for Public Interest Litigation (CPIL) on Thursday declined to name the whistleblower who leaked details of the guest register of the official residence of Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) director Ranjit Sinha.

The register showed him meeting executives from companies that are being probed by the federal agency in connection with the 2G telecom spectrum scandal.

A governing body resolution from a 17 September meeting of CPIL, which was attended by Anil Divan, Colin Gonsalves, Shanti Bhushan, Kamal Jaswal, Kamini Jaiswal and Prashant Bhushan, states its decision not to release the name of the informant to the Supreme Court in sealed covers. CPIL has filed an affidavit in this matter.

The affidavit states that public interest litigations (PILs) are non-adversarial where the court intends to find the truth and that rules of procedure are not strictly followed. “Several whistleblowers have unfortunately been killed after their identity was revealed," the affidavit said.

It refers to whistleblowers Satyendra Dube, S. Manjunath, Amit Jethwa and Shehla Masood who were killed after their identity became public. The affidavit also refers to a letter by activists such as Aruna Roy, Ajit Ranade, Jagdeep Chhokar, Shailesh Gandhi and Nikhil Dey to chief justice R.M. Lodha against revealing the whistleblower’s name in line with the Whistle Blowers Protection Act 2011 that was published in May.

The affidavit maintains that evidence against Sinha can be verified by “examining the ITBP (Indo-Tibetan Border Police) and CBI guards who were stationed at the residence of the CBI director", a list of which CPIL submitted to the court.

The affidavit reiterates its allegations against Sinha that he attempted to interfere in the 2G scam investigations.

Justices H.L. Dattu and S.A. Bobde of the apex court on 15 September had asked CPIL to disclose the identity of the person who had submitted the guest registers from Sinha’s official residence in accordance with the Supreme Court Rules 2013.

Sinha had objected to CPIL’s allegations against him. He said that CPIL was obligated to disclose the source of the information received by it, claimed that false statements amounting to perjury have been stated and privileged communication between Sinha and CBI’s special public prosecutor (U.U. Lalit at the time) have been used, which cannot be used without Sinha’s consent.

Subscribe to Mint Newsletters
* Enter a valid email
* Thank you for subscribing to our newsletter.

Never miss a story! Stay connected and informed with Mint. Download our App Now!!

Close
×
Edit Profile
My ReadsRedeem a Gift CardLogout