In-depth: 2G case is no fly zone for CBI Director Ranjit Sinha

Twelve days before his retirement, this is as bad as it gets for the head of the country's premier anti-corruption investigation agency. CBI Director Ranjit Sinha was on Thursday directed by the Supreme Court to stay away from the probe into the 2G scam, one of the biggest scandals to hit the country.

Never before has a court asked the chief of any police body in India to stay away from a case.

Sinha was removed from the probe on the grounds that allegations of him protecting some accused in the case appear to be "prima facie credible". Sinha was asked not to "interfere" in the case and let the senior-most officer after him supervise the probe.

After the proceedings that lasted nearly four hours, the Bench, headed by Chief Justice H.L. Dattu, refused to pass an elaborate order on the issue, saying it would tarnish the image and reputation of the agency.

The Bench, also comprising Justices M.B. Lokur and A.K. Sikri, observed, "Prima facie the allegations made in the application (by NGO Centre for Public Interest Litigation) are credible and required to be accepted."

The question that is now being asked after this unprecedented development is whether Sinha should continue as the CBI chief.

Sinha also came under attack from Anand Grover, the special public prosecutor appointed by the apex court for the 2G scam. Grover was critical of Sinha's role and questioned some of his decisions.

Even CBI counsel K.K. Venugopal raised questions about Sinha naming a senior IPS officer as a "mole" in his team.

"If he has any shame he ought to have resigned after the indictment of the Supreme Court and the special public prosecutor. If he does not resign it is incumbent upon the government to sack him and initiate proceedings against him," said Prashant Bhushan, who approached the Supreme Court seeking action against Sinha.

Grover raised serious questions on Sinha's conduct and contended that the entire case against some of the accused in the 2G case would have been "demolished" if Sinha's instructions were followed during the trial. Grover said that the stand taken by Sinha was "completely inconsistent" with the agency's and added that he tried to interfere at the last stage of the trial when the prosecution evidence was almost over.

He said that the information that he gathered, after going through all file notings, is "shocking" and cannot be revealed in an open court.

The independent prosecutor also raised questions on the opinion of the law ministry to allegedly favour some of the firms facing trial in the 2G case. "It is a sad story how the ministry works. An official deposed saying that it was done on the basis of file notings of the minister but the question is who was the person behind the minister," he said.

There was more drama in the chief justice's court when Bhushan alleged that Venugopal was directed by Sinha not to argue in this case. When the Bench inquired who had given such direction, CBI Joint Director Ashok Tiwari, who was present in the courtroom, said that Venugopal continues to be the CBI counsel in the apex court and tried to defend the CBI chief.

Noticing that there were at least nine CBI officers present in the court, the judges rebuked them by asking if they were the director's "agents" and "mouthpiece."

The Bench asked the officers to leave the courtroom and "do their duty rather than observe court proceedings". The officers, thereafter, left the courtroom.

In another blow to Sinha, the apex court also recalled its earlier order by which it directed CPIL to disclose the name of the whistleblower who had provided documents and the visitor's diary of Sinha's residence. Based on the revelations that Sinha met people linked to the 2G scam several times and other cases being probed by CBI, Prashant Bhushan moved the Supreme Court, seeking action against him. Sinha has questioned the authenticity of the diary and also levelled perjury allegations against Bhushan.

Venugopal brought to the court's notice media reports on Singh naming a DIG-rank officer Santosh Rastogi as a "mole" who supplied documents and guest list of the director's residence to Bhushan.

"Yesterday's statement was not right that the officer is a mole in the CBI. If there is any evidence, it must be produced. The statement must be withdrawn as the officer needs protection," he said.

Bhushan also submitted that he never met the officer and somebody else had given him the documents and filed an affidavit in this regard which was taken on record.

The Bench also raised objection that the image of the officer cannot be allowed to be tarnished and said that it was wrong on the part of Sinha's counsel to name the officer while arguing the case. Going by file notings on the transfer of the officer, the Bench said, "It seems that you want to clear the path as the officer was opposing some of your decisions".

The bench said the decision taken by the director to transfer the officer amounts to "overreaching" the apex court order which had directed that no person in 2G probe team be removed without its order.