Activist lawyer Prashant Bhushan, in an affidavit in the Supreme Court Thursday, refused to disclose the identity of the whistleblower in the case against CBI director Ranjit Sinha in the 2G spectrum scam.
Appearing for the Centre for Public Interest Litigation (CPIL), Mr Bhushan, said the allegations against the CBI director could be independently verified by special prosecutor Anand Grover. He also said the CBI director had himself admitted to meeting these people. Mr Bhushan in his earlier affidavit before the SC had alleged that several accused and officials of suspected companies in the 2G scam and other cases have been frequent visitors to Sinha’s residence. He also alleged that Mr Sinha was trying to protect some accused and sought his removal from the post.
“The information was received in confidence and trust by the CPIL’s counsel from a source who did not wish that the identity to be revealed. That confidence and trust reposed in CPIL’s counsel ought not to be breached,” says the affidavit filed on Thursday.
“This decision is also in light of the fact that in India, several informants and activists have unfortunately had to lose their lives for complaining against corruption. People like Satyendra Dube, S. Manjunath, Amit Jethwa, Shehla Masood etc. were murdered for exposing corruption after their identity had become public,” it said.
Several others and their families have had to face harassment of all kinds. Therefore, the CPIL cannot tell its counsel to disclose the source and thus expose the source to great risk, especially considering the seriousness of the issue and the entities involved,” it added.
The apex court had on Monday directed Mr Bhushan, who has levelled allegations against Mr Sinha of protecting accused in the 2G case, to reveal the name of the whistle blower from whom he got the CBI documents and guest list of the CBI chief’s residence.
The apex court had said that it would go into the merit of allegations against Mr Sinha after knowing the name of the whistle blower who leaked documents including the purported entry register of the Director’s residence. A bench of justices H L Dattu and SA Bobde had said that the affidavit filed by Mr Bhushan was not in consonance with the Supreme Court rules and asked him to reveal the source from whom he got all the documents. The bench, however, had requested Mr Bhushan to name the whistle blower in a sealed envelope.