The special public prosecutor in the 2G case has told the Supreme Court that it was “definitely improper” for CBI director Ranjit Sinha to frequently meet those accused in the coal and 2G scam cases and these meetings could not be a matter of Sinha’s right to privacy. The prosecutor also stressed that the alleged meetings “could prejudice, interfere or tend to interfere with the due course of judicial proceedings”.
Sinha’s meeting were recorded in a visitors’ register at his New Delhi residence and leaked to media and others by a whistleblower last month. The court-appointed prosecutor, Anand Grover, said that disclosing the name of the whistleblower may have a “chilling effect on the free flow of information”.
He said whether Sinha’s conduct would amount to criminal contempt of court or not was required to be examined by the bench, which had earlier sought his opinion on the controversy raging over the list of visitors.
“Given that the CBI director had his camp office located at his residence, the information contained in the register does not pertain to his personal affairs and rather appears to be a record of his professional meetings conducted in his official capacity,” Grover said in his 15-page note. “Further, the Official Secrets Act or any other statutory law does not protect the confidentiality of the information in the register.”
Grover added that there was “no question of proof of authenticity of the register” since the meetings had been admitted by Sinha in his interviews to the media.
“Where the sting of the allegation is admitted, there is no need to prove each and every allegation.”
The prosecutor, however, said that a “miscarriage of justice” may result if advocate Prashant Bhushan is compelled to disclose the identity of the whistleblower. Bhushan had been asked by the court to disclose who handed over the logbook to him – an order which he has asked to be revoked. Bhushan represents an NGO named CPIL, one of the petitioners in the 2G spectrum allocation case. It has sought an inquiry against Sinha, besides his removal from the probe.
“Disclosure may have a chilling effect on the free flow of information since it would deter persons acting as whistleblowers from divulging information in relation to wrongdoings by public officials and the government. Such right to free flow of information and the relationship between a journalist and his source has also been recognised as a First Amendment Right by the US Supreme Court,” read the note.
Requesting the court to recall its order on disclosure of the whistleblower’s identity, Grover said that by obstructing the potential flow of information may have implications on other such sensitive cases which depend significantly on information provided by whistleblowers,” he said, adding the whistleblower highlighted “wrongdoing” in the CBI.
Contact Lawyers In India : https://lawintellectindia.com/contact-us/