The Supreme Court on Monday decided to consider an NGO’s plea to recall the order directing it to reveal the identity of the whistleblower who provided the details of a purported vistors’ diary to CBI chief Ranjit Sinha’s residence here, showing his frequent meeting with the 2G scam accused.
A bench of Justices H L Dattu and S A Bobde said since its September 15 order asking advocate Prashant Bhushan to disclose the name of whistleblower would have wide ramifications, the court would like to have the assistance of special public prosecutor and senior advocate Anand Grover, appointed to conduct the 2G case proceedings in the trial court.
The court order came after CPIL, one of the petitioners in the 2G case, tendered an “unconditional apology in its inability” to comply with the previous order.
Senior advocate Dushyant Dave, appearing for Bhushan, urged the court to withdraw the order for disclosure of the whistleblower's identity in view of threat to the informant’s life.
As Dave submitted that he would not press for any prayer with regard to any specific manner of probe against Sinha, who was sought to be recused from probe in the 2G case, the court said it would seek the opinion of Grover before deciding the plea for recall of the order.
“Before we recall our order, we intend to hear special public prosecutor. We said in our order that the application (for recusal of CBI director) was not in accordance with the SC Rules if source is not disclosed. Tomorrow in many PILs, opposite parties may cite our order saying no petition can be entertained if source of information is not disclosed. Let us correct our mistake if it was a mistake. We also have our doubts whether we should accede to the plea for recall," the bench said.
Advocate Vikas Singh, representing the CBI director, however, objected to the decision, contending it was not a case where the court was required to conduct such an exercise when the bonafide of the applicants was doubtful. He said the applicants should in fact be hauled up for criminal contempt since they had refused to disclose the whistleblower’s identity.
