Can't divulge names of whistleblowers: Prashant Bhushan to Supreme Court

Taking a tough stand, the Centre for Public Interest Litigation (CPIL) on Thursday told the Supreme Court that the name of the person who gave access to details of visitors to CBI chief Ranjit Sinha's residence cannot be revealed as the same will endanger that person's life.

The NGO's lawyer Prashant Bhushan filed an affidavit before the apex court and said the NGO's governing body had held a meeting on September 17 and a resolution was passed not to reveal the name.

CPIL's general body meeting was attended by senior lawyers like Fali S Nariman, Anil Diwan and Shanti Bhushan.

"The information was received in confidence and trust by the CPIL's counsel from a source who did not wish his identity to be revealed. That confidence and trust reposed in CPIL's counsel ought not to be breached," the affidavit said.

"Who is going to take the responsibility for his life? Where is the doubt about the register? How is it relevant who gave the information? The CBI director has already admitted that he had met people of dubious character. The disclosure of the whistleblower's name is not relevant," senior advocate Kamini Jaiswal, who filed the affidavit on behalf of the NGO, told dna.

The affidavit cited the killings of several whistleblowers, whose names were disclosed in the past.

"This decision is also in the light of the fact that, in India, several informants and activists had to, unfortunately, lose their lives for complaining against corruption. People like Satyendra Dubey, S Manjunath, Amit Jethwa and Shehla Masood were murdered for exposing corruption after their identity became public. 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 risks, especially considering the seriousness of the issue and the entities involved," the affidavit said.

Jaiswal said in several PILs in the past, like the hawala case, where the Jain dairies were placed, the Radia tape case and even in this 2G case, the court has taken cognisance of the facts and has ordered investigation without insisting on the source of the documents.

"Proceedings in a PIL, unlike private litigation or suits, are non-adversarial where the role of the court is to ascertain the truth and to devise remedies and upholding public interest. A strict application of the forms of proceedings and rules regarding verification, as may be applicable to individual grievances, have been found to be quite inappropriate for consideration of issues in public interest. The court has, therefore, often entertained even letters as PILs, has often entertained news reports as evidence and taken up several cases suo motu. The court has often appointed inquiry commissioners, amici curiae and fact-finding committees to assist the court in various important PILs," one of the reasons cited by the NGO.

CPIL continuously receives important information and documents from a large number of sources who wish to keep their identity secret. Any disclosure of identity in one case is likely to deter the sources in other cases.

Therefore, the identity of the source can be revealed only if the person concerned agrees in writing to such a disclosure,"reads the affidavit.

Dna, which has access to Sinha's visitors' diary, had reported that the top officials of the Anil Dhirubhai Ambani Group (ADAG) have met CBI director Sinha at least 50 times in 15 months at his official residence – 2 Janpath – in New Delhi. This has put Sinha in a spot as he has already come under attack for allegedly trying to derail the ongoing 2G trial against Reliance Telecom.

Bhushan had cited dna and brought to the court's notice Sinha's meeting with the accused. Finding the allegation "serious", the bench headed by Justice H L Dattu sought the original diary detail in its custody.

On September 15, the court had asked Bhushan to reveal the name of the whistleblower who had access to details of visitors to the CBI chief's house, which he had submitted in court earlier this month.

CPIL is the NGO on whose petition the entire 2G spectrum allocation case came to the limelight and several politicians, including former telecom minister A Raja and others. Some telecom firms, their officials and government officers have been facing trial for alleged illegal allocation of spectrum.