•  •  Dark Mode

Your Interests & Preferences

I am a...

law firm lawyer
in-house company lawyer
litigation lawyer
law student
aspiring student

Website Look & Feel

 •  •  Dark Mode
Blog Layout

Save preferences

SC gives in on CBI whistleblower unmasking, allows Grover to file reports

The Supreme Court on Wednesday allowed the Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) in the 2G case, senior advocate Anand Grover, to file two reports on the role of CBI chief Ranjit Sinha in the probe and naming the person who leaked the contents of the visitor book at his residence.

A bench of Justice HL Dattu permitted Grover to file these reports with the court’s registry and without disclosing the identity of the whistleblower, withdrawing its earlier order, after Grover said that the report on the role of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) director Sinha would be furnished in a sealed cover.

The court in its earlier hearing had asked Grover, who is heading the prosecution team in the special CBI court that is trying the 2G cases, to assist in ascertaining Sinha’s role in the case and whether the identity of the whistleblower could be made public.

The NGO Centre for Public Interest Litigation, which claimed it was in receipt of the visitor’s book at Sinha’s residence, had alleged that he had been meeting the accused in the 2G case and interfering to derail the probe and the trial.

The apex court on 22 September had asked Grover to examine all the material before the court including the entry register at Sinha’s residence and assist the court on the NGO’s application seeking a recall of its 15 September order asking to disclose the identity of the whistleblower.

The 15 September order had asked the CPIL disclose to it the identity of the whistleblower who gave information on alleged interference by Sinha in the probe and prosecution of 2G cases and also provided details of the accused who visited his official residence and met him.

The court had then said it “wants to know the authenticity of the person who has given the information”, and also ascertain the authenticity of the information provided.

Seeking the source of information, the court said that “information is of serious consequences” having the potential of damaging the “reputation of a person”.

No comments yet: share your views