The tongue lashing a Supreme Court bench led by Chief Justice of India H.L. Dattu gave CBI director Ranjit Sinha in the 2G spectrum case on Thursday, and the apex court’s instruction that he should not any further “interfere” in the ongoing 2G trial, is damaging in the extreme to the CBI chief at a personal level.
But at the institutional level the national investigating agency Mr Sinha heads cannot remain untouched by the sharpness of the Supreme Court’s observations, although the bench noted that it wasn’t laying down its reasons for asking the director to desist as doing so might detract from the CBI’s dignity.
An entity, no matter how important or sturdy, whose chief is placed in a spot by the country’s top court, does lose some of its shine.
The CBI’s market value was always questionable in respect of high-profile cases involving the political class, but the agency has many officers of integrity and its record is not at all bad when it comes to cases of a non-political nature.
The fundamental reason for the Supreme Court’s ire seems to be that the court has accepted wholesale the contention of the counsel for an NGO, Prashant Bhushan, who is also a leader of the Aam Aadmi Party, based on a document provided by an anonymous source, that the CBI director frequently met people associated with the 2G scam, and this was irregular conduct.
The apex court accepted the validity of the document after the special public prosecutor appointed by it found it admissible.
At the technical level, Mr Sinha’s defence is not without merit that his residence also serves as his office and by meeting an accused he is not compromising his integrity.
The soundness of this position would have been bolstered if the investigating officer in the case had been in attendance when he met charge sheeted persons, or their representatives.
The more pertinent point, however, is that of placing reliance by the Supreme Court on a document whose source is anonymous and which has not been authenticated and corroborated.
It may be asked if every anonymous source can automatically be deemed a “whistleblower”. Since the passing of a virtual stricture on Mr Sinha by the SC rests fundamentally on the document supplied by Mr Bhushan, it may be in the public interest to establish the provenance of the document, and to ensure its corroboration.
It is a pity that the SC has recalled its earlier order that Mr Bhushan disclose his source. As for the CBI director, he has barely 10 days service left. He could do no better than to place his version on record and voluntarily depart the scene.
