#dnaEdit: Shooting the messenger

The Supreme Court’s insistence that advocate Prashant Bhushan disclose the identity of the whistle-blower who allegedly gave him the visitor diary maintained at CBI director Ranjit Sinha’s  official residence is a case of misplaced priorities. Admittedly, the Supreme Court was taking heed of Sinha’s claim that “90 per cent” of the diary was fabricated and his demand for revealing the whistle-blower. Ironically, Sinha is already on record admitting to have met many of the persons whose names figured in the visitor register, as extensively reported by several news outlets. But the question that merits asking is whether this drastic step was the only recourse left to ascertain the diary’s authenticity. In a country where nearly 40 whistle-blowers have been killed after their identities were unmasked and a Whistle Blowers Protection Act had to be enacted, this eagerness to unmask the informer, rather than probe the information made available, is untenable. 

Section 4(6) of The Whistle Blowers Protection Act, 2014, offers a clear-cut policy on anonymous information: “No action shall be taken on public interest disclosure by the Competent Authority if the disclosure does not indicate the identity of the complainant or public servant making public interest disclosure or the identity of the complainant or public servant is found incorrect or false.” It is clear that the public servant’s identity is not mandatory if there is another complainant; the wording is “...if the disclosure does not indicate the identity of the complainant or public servant making public interest disclosure...”. With Bhushan coming forward as the “complainant” and proclaiming that “he is ready to stake his life” on the diary’s authenticity, the apex court’s order contravenes the spirit of this new legislation.

Rather than single out a public servant who made a public interest disclosure, there are several options available before the powerful Supreme Court. Several personnel drawn from the Indo-Tibetan  Border Police, CBI, and the Delhi Police, guard Sinha’s residence 2 Janpath. It can be argued that a better course of action, to ascertain authenticity, would be for the Supreme Court judges to summon these men and question them in-chamber or entrust an independent agency with the probe. Precious judicial time has already been expended, but the crux of the matter – the impropriety of Sinha meeting owners and officials of companies under CBI investigation — is yet to be taken up for deliberation. Admittedly, the surfacing of the visitor register has affected Sinha’s credentials and the right to personal reputation is an inseparable part of a person’s fundamental right to life and liberty. It is equally important that the integrity of public office be safeguarded.

This interrogation of whistle-blowers rather than the information they provide is hardly surprising. Recently, AIIMS chief vigilance officer, Sanjiv Chaturvedi, was removed for pursuing irregularities against senior AIIMS doctors. Previously, he was a whistleblowing Indian Forest Service Officer who exposed vast forest diversions in Haryana, earning the state chief minister’s ire. IAS officer Ashok Khemka, also from Haryana, has faced punitive action for exposing irregularities in Robert Vadra’s land deals. The Supreme Court’s action has implications for journalists too. Protecting a source’s identity, even a whistleblowing source, is among a journalist’s primary responsibilities. In the past, various high courts have ruled for and against this practice. The hesitation among authorities to first verify the public interest served by disclosures, and the eagerness to corner whistle-blowers for disrupting service discipline, sums up the sad state of affairs today.