Supreme Court asks CBI Director Ranjit Sinha to keep away from 2G case(Photo: PTI)
In the first such incident in the history of the nation’s premier investigating agency, the CBI director was on Thursday directed by the Supreme Court to disassociate himself from the ongoing 2G scam case. This is seen as a major setback to CBI director Ranjit Sinha, and comes just 12 days before he is due to retire on December 2.
In a scathing observation, the Supreme Court noted that the allegations against the CBI chief that he had protected some accused persons in the case appear “prima facie credible”. The court also observed that apparently “all is not well” in the agency.
“For us, it appears all is not well and prima facie it seems that allegations made in the application by (an) NGO have some credibility,” the court said in connection with a case on allegations by NGO Centre for Public Interest Litigation that claimed Mr Sinha might have tried to save some accused in the 2G scam. The court handed over the 2G cases to the seniormost officer after Mr Sinha, and recalled its earlier order directing Mr Prashant Bhushan to reveal the name of the whistleblower who supplied file notings and guest list register of Mr Sinha’s house.
With the court directing CBI chief to recuse himself from the 2G probe, trouble seems to be brewing for Mr Sinha. There is a strong possibility that the government may ask Mr Sinha to either step down or go on leave. Insiders said the Narendra Modi government is exploring all options. The BJP welcomed the court order, and its leader Sambit Patra said: “People have every right to know the truth about Ranjit Sinha.”
A bench headed by Chief Justice H.L. Dattu, however, refused to pass any elaborate order on the issue, saying it would “tarnish” the agency’s “image and reputation”. Special public prosecutor Anand Grover on Thursday told the court that Mr Sinha had interfered in the 2G case, that is completely inconsistent with the agency’s stand.
“Our case in 2G could have been demolished if director’s stand was accepted,” Mr Grover said, raising serious doubts on Mr Sinha’s credibility and also on the role of a former law minister in giving a favourable opinion on some accused in the case.
Soon after the court directive, the beleaguered CBI chief said he would abide by the order directing him to recuse himself from the 2G scam probe, and denied that he had named any officer as a “mole” before the court. Talking to reporters at the CBI headquarters, Mr Sinha said: “I have not named any officer as a mole or anything.” He added that he would not file any review petition as the order was from the bench headed by the Chief Justice.
The Supreme Court bench took strong exception to the CBI director tarnishing the image of a senior officer by calling him a mole, that was also objected to by the CBI, which sought a direction to the officer to withdraw the statement. “You are not supposed to tarnish the image of a person at the instruction of your client”, the bench said. The court expressed displeasure over the presence of a large number of CBI officers in the courtroom, and asked the officers to leave and go back to their duties. The court also pulled up CBI joint director Ashok Tiwari for trying to defend the director, saying: “You are not agents of the director and you cannot be his mouthpiece. You do not need to take responsibility. How is your presence required here?”
The Congress, meanwhile, welcomed the removal of the CBI director from the 2G case, but found “confusing signals” in the directive, wondering how could the officer be left to look after other cases if he was not performing adequately. “With regard to the Supreme Court directive, of course, it is welcome. If the Supreme Court feels the CBI director was not acting independently, it is a welcome step,” said party spokesman Sandeep Dikshit.
Terming the court order “unfortunate”, former CBI chief Joginder Singh told this newspaper: “Every act has its consequences. There is no smoke without fire. Whatever the SC has said is absolutely correct that there are lots of allegations (about) credibility against him.”