CBI chief challenges Prashant Bhushan's claims in SC over visitors' list case

CBI Director Ranjit Sinha came out with all guns blazing in the Supreme Court on Tuesday to defend himself in a case pertaining to the visitors' diary, maintained at his official residence, which allegedly showed that he met several persons who are accused in cases that being probed by the agency.

This forced a Bench headed by Chief Justice HL Dattu to ask pointed questions to lawyer Prashant Bhushan on why he should not be directed to reveal the name of the "whistleblower" who gave him a copy of the diary and several other confidential notings from CBI files.

"The reason cited by Bhushan for not revealing the name of his source is scandalous. He is not even ready to trust the Supreme Court judges who asked him to file the name in a sealed cover which will only be seen by them and no one else. He says it would endanger the life of his source. Is he expecting the judges of this court to do bodily harm?" Sinha's lawyer Vikas Singh asked.

After hearing Singh for almost an hour, Dattu asked lawyer Dushyant Dave, who represented Bhushan,"Our direction was that the information was for us only. You can't even reveal it to us?"

When Dave responded that "the information was received on the condition that the name will not be shared with anyone", Dattu asked, "Did he also say to not share it with the court?"

Dave maintained that Bhushan's NGO Centre for Public Interest Litigation received such information and documents from sources who wished to keep their identity secret and any disclosure would deter them in future.

The court will continue hearing on Wednesday.

The Bench's remarks were significant as it was widely believed that the judges would accept Special Public Prosecutor Anand Grover's opinion that Bhushan should not be forced to reveal the source as it may have implications on other sensitive cases depending significantly on information provided by whistleblowers.

Referring to a 2011 ruling, Singh argued that Bhushan's affidavit, based on the visitors' diary, will be in conformity with the apex court rules only if he revealed its source.

Singh challenged Bhushan's claim that he received the diary from a "reliable whistleblower", saying the "concept of the whistleblower would only arise if one is dealing with crimes committed where the whistleblower needs protection against the persons against whom some disclosure is sought to be made".

The CBI chief is set to retire on December 2.

BATTING FOR HIS CASE

Sinha cites the following cases to drive home his point that SC should reject affidavits carrying any information that do not reveal the source:

AMAR SINGH vs UNION OF INDIA (2011)

SC registry must scrutinise all affidavits and reject all those which are not in conformity with SC rules. Sinha says SC Registry ought to have rejected the Common Cause petition as the source of the documents was not revealed.

STATE OF BOMBAY vs PURUSHOTTAM NAIK (1952)

SC rejected an affidavit based on "personal knowledge" as its source was not disclosed. "This is slipshod verification on the part of the registry. Such affidavits should not be taken on record", the SC had then said.

R.C. JAIN vs HIGH COURT OF PATNA (1996)

SC questioned counsel for petitioner on how he produced a copy of a confidential official note. "A duty is cast on him to explain the source from where he obtained it," it said.

(In association with Mail Today)