JOIN USPointing out that the alleged whistleblower’s name was not disclosed in the additional affidavit filed by the NGO to the court, CBI Director Ranjit Sinha has questioned the legality of Centre for Public Interest Litigation’s stand that he should be recused from the 2G scam probe.
“In the instant case, there is no averment in the affidavit whatsoever to indicate that the whistleblower is under any kind of threat from anybody so as to claim immunity and non-disclosure of his name,” Sinha said in his response to the Supreme Court on Friday, which is to come up before the bench headed by Chief Justice of India-designate H L Dattu on Monday when it resumes hearing on the case.
“It is not enough to contend for the petitioner that the information was given to him by a whistleblower because the concept of whistleblower would arise only if one is dealing with crimes committed where the whistleblower needs protection against the persons against whom the disclosure is sought to be made,” he added, raising questions over NGO counsel Prashant Bhushan’s plea.
Claims that Sinha met with those accused in the 2G scam case has created controversy, while also raising doubts over the CBI director’s suitability in probing the case. The claims were made based on a diary containing the roster of visitors to Sinha’s residence which allegedly has names of those accused in the 2G scam.
On September 8, the apex court termed the charges against Sinha as “serious” and asked the CBI director to file his response.
Sinha also said that the petitioner (NGO ‘Common Cause’ in the coal scam case) made a “blatantly false” statement claiming that the Supreme Court admonished him for sharing the status report with the then Law Minister with the intention of getting favourable orders from the court.
He said the action is punishable under Section 193 (making false statement on oath) of the Indian Penal Code which would get the offender imprisonment up to seven years.